AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES AND ETHICAL ISSUES
Student’s Name
Course
Professor’s Name
Institution
Location of Institution
Date
Autonomous Vehicles and Ethical Issues
Introduction
More often than not, when the debate of autonomous vehicles and business ethical issues arises, the trolley problem’s dialogue has to come up. The trolley issue is a pondering concern in which one is confronted with two circumstances, which have nearly nominally equal chance for courses of action (Martinez and Soriguera 2018, p.275). Further, whichever course of action is taken has possible consequences. Two common situations are conventionally used to describe the trolley problem. On one hand, situation A is otherwise known as the ‘switch,’ which is considered where a runaway trolley is moving down a truck. It is likely to strike into and end the lives of five laborers except that an onlooker propels a switch and, consequently, redirects a train towards a sidetrack that will only murder one worker (Martinez and Soriguera, 2018, p.275).
On the other hand, situation B is popularly known as the ‘bridge.’ It is where an onlooker is crossing the bridge and discovers that five people will be extinguished except for if he shoves a relatively huge and chubby worker off the bridge into the tracks underneath (Martinez and Soriguera, 2018, p.275). This action results in the breaking off the train and rescuing the five. All the same, the two situations have potential consequences. This paper analyzes the trolley problem in the context of designing software for autonomous vehicles and the benefits and risks associated. Importantly, the paper discusses alternative ways of considering ethical issues relating to autonomous vehicles’ design and use. Furthermore, the essay outlines the reasons for businesses to consider ethical issues around autonomous vehicles. It finalizes by reflecting the ubiquity of autonomous vehicles, and the possible nature of their future.
The Trolley Problem in Designing Software for Autonomous Vehicles
The trolley problem has sent researchers and experts to the study and conduction of experiments to find a long-lasting solution. It is argued that the self-driving cars should aim at completely avoiding to kill and not on whom to kill, as previously thought (Holstein and Dodig 2018, p.35). As a consequence, getting to the bottom of technical challenges concerning self-driving vehicles that are invulnerable, unprejudiced, ethically legitimized, and incorporated into our day to day lives is the predominant objective (Holstein & Dodig, 2018, p.35). This objective has to be achieved because autonomous vehicles will be concatenated progressively. People will adjust to autonomous vehicles, and similarly, autonomous vehicles have to be modified to human beings.
The adaptation itself is a frequent operation where the stakeholders including but not limited to the legislative body, car industrialists, and the general society, performs a vital responsibility in uncovering the accurate interactive regulations for autonomous cars (Bagloee and Oliver 2016, p.285). Accordingly, it is inevitable to frequently assess and analyze the autonomous vehicles. In so doing, there come some critical challenges associated with the trolley problem when designing the software for self-driving cars. Some of the major challenges are as discussed below.
Sensors
For the purposes of efficiency, sensor data is assessed by the use of algorithms. Identification can be dependent on neural networks (Holstein and Dodig, 2018, p.35). That is, the machine study, consulting documented data from real cars or simulated circumstances to inform the conduct of the vehicle. For instance, an analysis of the pictures of wayfarers, it is made possible for a neural nexus to learn and recognize a pedestrian.
Nonetheless, when the neural nexus is designed to identify the photographs of a foot traveler, there emerge several concerns that need to be put into consideration. For example, it is essential to determine whether those pictures taken comply with the concern of impartiality (Applin 2017, p.109). Additionally, we need to ascertain whether the captured pictures are biased or not. Here, the business can be brought about by the geographical area where the pictures are taken, the nature of outfit one puts on, or by the manner in which people pose for the photos. Fundamentally, it calls for the question as to whether the pictures taken are a complete representation of the entire situation globally, or if the situation only represents a single region (Meschtscherjakov and Kun 2018, p.5). This question then helps to determine whether people from other topographical areas can be effectively captured in the photos. However, this presents a great challenge as it may not be possible for the system to work effectively towards responding to the concern.
External Positioning Systems
The positioning structures present another grave challenge in designing the software for self-driving cars. For instance, connected or interconnected structures responsible for giving an account of the nature of barriers to the vehicle, are all in probability to set off. For example, in Germany, by now, there exists a device known as “Schutzranzen” (“protective backpack”) (Holstein and Dodig 2018, p.36). This project utilizes functional transponders in backpacks to dispatch and place raw information to a cloud that disseminates the information to vehicles within reach (Holstein and Dodig 2018, p.36). Resultantly, drivers can make use of an application to be notified if learners with defensive backpacks are in the vicinity of the vehicle. This experience is projected to heighten the security of the learners using the road.
However, assuming this project is considered for a wide-reaching area. When the device is set in a manner that it is active such that transponders interlinked to autonomous vehicles, this test brings us to the question of whether the arrangement of data can be contemplated as an effective tool for decision making of autonomous vehicles (Mordue and Wu 2020, p.180). If the reaction to this issue is yes, then there is a high probability that some phone gadgets could possess superior GPS, location sensors, or sprightly internet connectivity (Holstein and Dodig 2018 p.36). In so doing, the canon of equality for all humans is disregarded. It is more serious in cases where some people could not be possessing cellular phones. Worse still, people whose battery charge could below to the point of failing to sustain them be disadvantaged.
External Services
Offering updated knowledge to autonomous cars, say map data, location, traffic details, among others, can also be a theme of discussion when it adds up to fairness (Holstein and Dodig, 2018). For instance, it is inevitable to find out whether the external services have the potential of adjusting the conduct of the vehicle in any way. A good example is the possibility of a map service to divert or control the vehicle through a particular area that is more developed in terms of shops when compared to other areas (Holstein and Dodig, 2018, p.36). Again, when it comes to smart cities, the vehicles could be diverted as it could be attributable to the traffic moderation structures in an attempt to clear traffic. In this situation, it could be impossible for passengers to have control of the vehicles. Ordinarily, it would be extremely difficult to ascertain that the paths taken by the self-driving vehicles are fair to every single user.
Benefits of the Trolley Problem in Designing a Software
Firstly, the trolley problem plays a crucial role in helping to recognize common reactions or intuitions with regard to the best decision to consider. It also helps to identify the situations of stable agreements and disagreements. For example, by adjusting the rules associated with the trolley, experts are placed in a better position to study the human reactions and their intuitions even in cases where the answerers are not in a position to illuminate their thinking (Award and Ragwan 2018, p.54). This enables the experts to formulate a reliable software for autonomous vehicles.
Secondly, the trolley problem acts as an edge case. It is argued that just like any well-founded ethical concept should be in a position to react logically to a thought inquiry, a refined crash prevention policy should be crafted to demonstrate a protective solution for the reported though scattered cases. This concept is useful because courses of action that revolve around life and death are the most problematic decisions a car will encounter (Award and Ragwan 2018, p.54). As such, a suggested ethical structure for autonomous vehicles can be speedily assessed against other scenarios for unforeseen or unpleasant behavior and other speculative case scenarios.
For example, in a case where ethical policy requires that the self-driving vehicles maintain global road security. However, a situation arises that the vehicle has to make a choice to collide with one of the two motorcyclists. It happens that one has a helmet, whereas the other lacks it. In this situation, a self-driving car effectively programmed would select to collide with the motorcyclist with a helmet (Award and Ragwan 2018 p.55). The chances are that the helmeted motorcyclist may have minor injuries and even escape alive, unlike the case with a non-helmeted motorcyclist.
Risks of the Trolley Problem in Designing a Software
In all cases, the trolley problem necessitates two options. This situation is considered by many people as unpractical, and they argue that a given pre-crash circumstance would have several alternatives. In most driving cases, there is a likelihood of having a secure third party or other safer alternatives. For an automated car, a situation where a child is on the road, the vehicle may opt to curl multiple times, with the hope that the child will get out of the road and probably avoid the crash (Dixit and Nair, 2016). But this nature of chance and risk mitigation action is missing in the trolley problem, which only provides two options whose consequence is death irrespective of the decision taken.
Again, the trolley problem presupposes known outcomes in the course of action taken. Experts argue that any kind of a road accident is dependent on a number of elements like age and soberness. For example, an older person, of say 75 years, is susceptible to fatality compared to a 25-year old (Dixit and Nair, 2016). It also depends on the victim’s state as to whether one is drunk or sober and whether one is male or female. Notwithstanding, the effort of pulling or not pulling the switch has a predetermined outcome of death.
Alternative Ways of Considering the Ethical Issues Relating to the Design and Use of A.V.s
Autonomous vehicles should not drive like human beings. This is because human beings aren’t perfect, and on most occasions, they drive in problematic ways. For example, a decision to climb down at crosswalks depending on age, gender, or race may be reconsidered. In view of this, scholars have discovered that the black wayfarers are likely to be passed by twice as many vehicles and had to bide one’s time prolonged than the white pedestrians (Dixit and Nair, 2016). Therefore, autonomous vehicles should drive more fairly and safely than human beings can do.
Besides, the nature of self-driving vehicles requires to be at an equilibrium between the security of others, whether they are walkers or cyclists, and with the attentiveness of the passengers in the autonomous car (Dixit and Nair 2016). Engineers also need to prepare trade-offs between mobility and environmental impacts. This could involve slight changes in computer-regulated acceleration for cars. Additionally, cornering and braking can lead to large impacts on energy consumption and pollution emissions.
Reasons for Businesses to Consider Ethical Issues Around Autonomous Vehicles.
Ethics is important in autonomous cars for several reasons. For instance, it is projected that the market may approximately get to $42billion by the year 2025 and with an estimated yearly expansion rate of 21% by the year 2035 (Dixit and Nair 2016). These changes are projected to be caused by autonomous vehicles. Consequently, there will be great disruptions leading to the creation and development of new businesses, goods, services, as well as business models (Taeihagh and Lim 2019, p.115). However, the conceptualization of these changes will stimulate a great debate on ethical issues and implications. Thus, it is fundamental for businesses to understand the ethical issues related to autonomous vehicles. This understanding will enable business people to prepare in advance and probably initiate innovations.
Furthermore, the autonomous vehicles will enable the business to run effectively on a timely schedule. This is because the traffic snarls which could otherwise lead to delays are dealt way with (Hancock and Stewart 2019, p.7686). For instance, the autonomous cars are fitted with the platooning system that permits automated highway structure to reduce congestion. Moreover, they enhance traffic by adding up lane capability (Sparrow and Howard 2017, p.209). Besides, autonomous vehicles have the ability to communicate with one another, a situation that enables easy recognition of traffic and on time. Again, autonomous vehicles offer easy accessibility to transport services. This service is useful to businesses, especially when distributing products to customers. It, therefore, calls for the businesses to understand the ethical issues in self-driving cars, because it is increasingly becoming a major business determinant.
A Reflection on the Statement ‘Autonomous Vehicles will be Ubiquitous.’
A recent study by the Massachusetts Institutes of Technology has shown that autonomous vehicles may take so many cars away from the roads to the tune of approximately 80% (Himmelreich, 2018, p.670). With fewer cars, the majority of the existing space could be directed to other uses. Considerably, the reduction in the number of cars on roads will go a long way in the lowering of costs and the consumption of energy. Further engineering analysis has demonstrated that automation could expand the ability of any single highways (Gogol and Muller, 2017, p.686). Notably, fewer cars would result in less noise and hence reduced environmental pollution. In one way or another, self-driving cars will, in the long run, soften the borders between public and private shipment modes (De Sio 2017, p.421). With this respect, I have a conviction that one’s car will be able to provide him a lift to work and then offer the gift to someone else, probably a family member or anyone else, instead of staying slothful at the parking lot.
On the authority of research by HIS, the sales curve for autonomous vehicles is likely to expand by 2025, and could further increase to about 12 million by 2035 (Himmelreich, 2018, p.671). With this tendency, autonomous cars could be everywhere by 2050. Interestingly, Seven States and Washington, DC, have reportedly formulated laws for testing self-driving cars by now (Contissa and Sartor 2017, p.371). Michigan has also established legislation permitting autonomous vehicles to take effect on any of the states 122,000 miles of highways (Himmelreich 2018, p.671). All in all, the conception of self-driving vehicles is what has not been welcomed by the majority of the drivers. For example, a University of Michigan report discovered that less than 20% of answerers bespeaks their preference to self-driving cars (Himmelreich, 2018, p.672). From this analysis, it can be elucidated that the wide majority still want to be in control of the steering wheels of their vehicles while on the highway.
Into the bargain of exterminating security regulatory and economic challenges, it is crucial that the mechanical, electronic and software elements in driverless cars are operational in a consummate manner (Rosique and Padilla, 2019, p.648). In other concerns, the wireless bandwidth position has to be checked. For instance, it has to be expanded, sustained, and fast enough to give room for an expeditious reaction to diverse circumstances (Award and Ragwan 2018, p.60). Nonetheless, the word of honor for driverless cars is expansive globally. Hundreds of thousands of human beings lose their lives annually in traffic accidents, a concern whose cause has been attributed to human error. In consequence, self-driving cars are the solution.
Future of Autonomous Vehicles
From my perception, the future of self-driving cars is luminous. Firstly, these cars will provide comfort to the aging population who cannot drive. Secondly, security on roads will be enhanced by the driverless cars, and lastly, the general transport industry will record a consequential amelioration.
Conclusion
In closing, this paper analyzed the trolley problem in the context of designing software for autonomous vehicles and the benefits and risks associated. That is, sensors, external positioning systems, and external services. Importantly, the paper discussed alternative ways of considering ethical issues relating to the design and use of autonomous vehicles. Furthermore, the essay outlined the reasons for businesses to consider ethical issues around autonomous vehicles. It finalized by reflecting the ubiquity of autonomous vehicles, and the possible nature of their future.
References
Applin, S., 2017. Autonomous vehicle ethics: Stock or custom? IEEE Consumer Electronics Magazine, 6(3), pp.108-110.
Awad, E., Dsouza, S., Kim, R., Schulz, J., Henrich, J., Shariff, A., Bonnefon, J.F., and Rahwan, I., 2018. The moral machine experiment. Nature, 563(7729), pp.59-64.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0637-6/
Bagloee, S.A., Tavana, M., Asadi, M., and Oliver, T., 2016. Autonomous vehicles: challenges, opportunities, and future implications for transportation policies. Journal of modern transportation, 24(4), pp.284-303.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40534-016-0117-3
Contissa, G., Lagioia, F., and Sartor, G., 2017. The Ethical Knob: ethically-customizable automated vehicles and the law. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 25(3), pp.365-378.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10506-017-9211-z
De Sio, F.S., 2017. Killing by autonomous vehicles and the legal doctrine of necessity. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 20(2), pp.411-429.
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10677-017-9780-7.pdf
Dixit, V.V., Chand, S., and Nair, D.J., 2016. Autonomous vehicles: disengagements, accidents, and reaction times. PLoS One, 11(12), p. e0168054.
Gogoll, J., and Müller, J.F., 2017. Autonomous cars: in favor of a mandatory ethics setting. Science and engineering ethics, 23(3), pp.681-700.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11948-016-9806-x
Hancock, P.A., Nourbakhsh, I., and Stewart, J., 2019. On the future of transportation in an era of automated and autonomous vehicles. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(16), pp.7684-7691.
https://www.pnas.org/content/116/16/7684.short
Himmelreich, J., 2018. Never mind the trolley: The ethics of autonomous vehicles in mundane situations. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 21(3), pp.669-684.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10677-018-9896-4
Holstein, T., and Dodig-Crnkovic, G., 2018, May. Avoiding the intrinsic unfairness of the trolley problem. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Software Fairness (pp. 32-37).
Martínez-Díaz, M. and Soriguera, F., 2018. Autonomous vehicles: theoretical and practical challenges. Transportation Research Procedia, 33, pp.275-282.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352146518302606
Meschtscherjakov, A., Tscheligi, M., Pfleging, B., Sadeghian Borojeni, S., Ju, W., Palanque, P., Riener, A., Mutlu, B. and Kun, A.L., 2018, April. Interacting with autonomous vehicles: Learning from other domains. In Extended abstracts of the 2018 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1-8).
https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3170427.3170614
Mordue, G., Yeung, A., and Wu, F., 2020. The looming challenges of regulating high-level autonomous vehicles. Transportation research part A: policy and practice, 132, pp.174-187.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S096585641930480X
Rosique, F., Navarro, P.J., Fernández, C., and Padilla, A., 2019. A systematic review of the perception system and simulators for autonomous vehicle research. Sensors, 19(3), p.648.
https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/19/3/648
Sparrow, R., and Howard, M., 2017. When human beings are like drunk robots: Driverless vehicles, ethics, and the future of transport. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 80, pp.206-215.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0968090X17301262
Taeihagh, A., and Lim, H.S.M., 2019. Governing autonomous vehicles: emerging responses for safety, liability, privacy, cybersecurity, and industry risks. Transport Reviews, 39(1), pp.103-128.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01441647.2018.1494640