Regulating Autonomy: An Assessment of Policy Language for Highly Automated Vehicles

Schuelke‐Leech, Beth‐Anne; Jordan, Sara R.; Barry, Betsy

doi:10.1111/ropr.12332

Cited by 20 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…expert survey). A general criticism on this is made by Schuelke-Leech et al [30], Hubbrad [31], and Mackie [32]. Nevertheless, the problem seems to be far more complex.…”

Section: State-of-the-artmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Moral Consensus Mechanism for Autonomous Driving: Towards a Law-compliant Basis of Logic Programming

Wanner¹,

Herm²,

Langer³

et al. 2020

WI2020 Zentrale Tracks

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research into autonomous vehicles is making progress. While implementation is progressing through machine learning and efficient sensor technology, one key challenge remains dealing with moral disputes. In general, traffic requires for moral decisions that might even decide on the life or death of participants. While people make intuitive decisions in accidents, a decision of an autonomous vehicle is made already at the programming stage. Thus, a concrete handling for implementation is needed. Due to a lack of legislation, this is still missing and prevents car manufacturers from a practical solution. The paper at hand addresses this problem by presenting a consensus mechanism, combining moral convictions, legislation, and programming guidelines. Based on a study of dilemma situations, moral principles of the 'correct action' of autonomous vehicles are derived. Of four principles, we confirm one, reject two, and propose one for further research investigation to form a basis for jurisdictions.

show abstract

“…expert survey). A general criticism on this is made by Schuelke-Leech et al [30], Hubbrad [31], and Mackie [32]. Nevertheless, the problem seems to be far more complex.…”

Section: State-of-the-artmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Moral Consensus Mechanism for Autonomous Driving: Towards a Law-compliant Basis of Logic Programming

Wanner¹,

Herm²,

Langer³

et al. 2020

WI2020 Zentrale Tracks

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The second is how these new autonomous agents are to be integrated into the current responsibility and liability regimes for driving. (Schuelke-Leech et al, 2019) Law enforcement [6] [11][18] Still, lawmakers have proposed and, sometimes, requested private companies to employ technical and organizational measures in order to guarantee the enforcement of the law. (Hacker, 2018) Path dependence resulting from capture by interest groups [18] Entrenched regulation of a legacy industry conflicts with the creation of a new industry, leading to regulatory path dependence resulting from capture by interest groups.…”

Section: Legal Issuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Yet the matter of responsibility weighs heavily in the moral imagination of the public and policy makers…. For instance, the researchers found that people in Western cultures have a greater preference for saving children over the elderly than people from Eastern cultures (Schuelke-Leech et al, 2019) True values important to the diverse stakeholders [1] Tools such as the value-focused thinking approach (Keeney, 1994) would be useful in identifying and structuring societal objectives, thereby focusing on the true values important to the diverse stakeholders. (Barclay, 2014) Individual behavior/trace Congress and public administration lack expertise [3][15][16] The guide explicitly acknowledges that government does not hold all necessary expertise, and consequently needs the input from stakeholders.…”

Section: Cooperation Between Regulators [4]mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The first group, Technical issues, concerns computational limitations and decisionmaking modeling complexity. Examples of these limitations and complexity we can find in themes like cybercrime (e.g., Barclay, 2014), algorithmic black box (Hacker, 2018), military use of AI (e.g., Wasilow & Thorpe, 2019), ethics by design (e.g., Schuelke-Leech, Jordan, & Barry, 2019), control of data and privacy in a multi-layered ICT ecosystem (Calo, 2015).…”

Section: Cooperation Between Regulators [4]mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The third group, Drivers, includes externalities or unexpected events that can trigger the regulation process, like the apocalyptic cinematic vision of AI (Wasilow & Thorpe, 2019), failures, accidents, or death caused by autonomous vehicles, and court cases (Schuelke-Leech et al, 2019), and the China regulatory benchmark over internet access (Pagallo, 2012).…”

Section: Cooperation Between Regulators [4]mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Difficulties in regulating disruptive technologies: a Habermasian analysis of regulators worldview and the participation and perceptions of academic fields

Galhardo¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The research studies the problem of regulation of disruptive technologies and Information and Communication (ICT). The objective is to discover regulators' difficulties, how they try to overcome them, and whether they count on the contribution of the Academy. It is empirical, sequential, and mixed-method research. The justification for choosing the theme stemmed from the growing concern of society, expressed in the mainstream media, academia, governments, and reports from multilateral organizations. The speed of evolution, the pervasiveness, the disruption of geographical boundaries, and the scale of social impacts of emergent ICT fuel the concern. The decision to conduct an empirical study focused on regulators was due to the gap identified in the literature review. The first step was identifying the difficulties of regulating emerging ICT in the literature, which also determined the choice of Habermas' Theory of Communicative Action as background for the study. We classified the difficulties into six groups: Societal objectives, Environment issues, Technical issues, Legal issues, Individual behavior or trace, and Drivers. The second step started with a qualitative exploratory analysis of documents produced by Science and Technology Committees from the legislative houses in the three levels of the Brazilian government (Federal, São Paulo State, and São Paulo city). Then, a sample of politicians and specialized bureaucrats from the executive branch and public prosecution service who participated in the discussions in public hearings in 2019 was interviewed and are the primary source of data for an in-depth qualitative analysis. For this purpose, we used the Multiple Streams Framework to help assess Habermas' idealized framework in the political scenario. We described the groups of actors present in the discussions and analyzed the performance and difficulties of the Committees at the three levels of Administration. The multistakeholder and multidisciplinary scenario and the time constraints difficulties gained new dimensions due to disruptive technologies. The last step of the research was a survey with four grand f academic fields (Administration, Information Systems, Law, and Sociology) to describe the experience with the regulation process of emerging ICT and differences in the perception of the difficulties, values, needs, and concerns raised in the previous stages through a Multiple Discriminant Analysis. In general, there was low participation and practical contribution. Respondents recognized the difficulties in regulating ICT, and a few variables showed differences between areas, some of which were unexpected. The results expand the existing classification of challenges to regulate disruptive technologies, serving as a possible level of analysis. We separated the critical analysis of the difficulties identified in the interviewees' speeches into those commonly observed in the political environment and those proper to the discussions about emerging ICT.Besides, the research contributes by objectively descr...

show abstract

Cyber security and its impact on CAV safety: Overview, policy needs and challenges

Katrakazas

Theofilatos

Papastefanatos³

et al. 2020

Advances in Transport Policy and Planning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Regulating Autonomy: An Assessment of Policy Language for Highly Automated Vehicles

Cited by 20 publications

References 38 publications

A Moral Consensus Mechanism for Autonomous Driving: Towards a Law-compliant Basis of Logic Programming

A Moral Consensus Mechanism for Autonomous Driving: Towards a Law-compliant Basis of Logic Programming

Difficulties in regulating disruptive technologies: a Habermasian analysis of regulators worldview and the participation and perceptions of academic fields

Cyber security and its impact on CAV safety: Overview, policy needs and challenges

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About