Driverless cars, good or bad?

We can’t imagine living our lives without computers and technology. For thousands of years, we relied on manual labour and hunter-gatherers. Only a few hundred years ago did we transition to automatic labour with the help of machines. Then, barely a generation ago, the explosion of the internet. Computers have become ubiquitous tools that we rely on in this digital age. Could we rely on them too much? Could they overtake human jobs in the next few years and cause unemployment on a mass scale? Google and other tech giants are already pouring money into driverless cars and language analysis. It’s not a matter of if, but when they become ready that established jobs like taxi drivers and transcribers will become obsolete.

For at least 100 years, driving has been a human task, deemed impossible for a machine to compute. This is because of how many variables there are when driving, so many rules of the road, each driver behaving differently. These variables, it was thought, could only be handled by a human.

Autonomous vehicles have more eyes on the road than any human driver. Each car will have anywhere from 10 - 50 sensors all operating simultaneously and combining their data for a smooth drive. 

However, these systems are not without their faults. The biggest problem when designing autonomous vehicles capable of operating at levels 2 and above is the human factor: is this vehicle in front of me going to brake suddenly? If I attempt to pass someone in front of me, will they suddenly speed up? There is also the problem known as risk compensation: as a system is perceived to be safer, people tend to perform riskier actions if they believe they have a safety net from the system. Tesla is already suffering from this problem with its semi-autonomous cars: where users of Tesla Autopilot blatantly ignore the road and use electronic devices against the advice of the company. In the near future, we may well see pedestrians walking on the road in a much riskier fashion because of this risk compensation. 

Another factor to consider would be the ethical issues an autonomous vehicle might face, such as the decisions a car is to make right before a potentially fatal crash. An ethical thought experiment all car manufacturers might need to consider at some point is the trolley problem. Let’s say a car is travelling with 5 passengers and notices an elderly pedestrian on the road. The car can either drive forward and kill only one elderly person, or it can swerve and hit a wall, killing the 5 passengers. While this is an extremely unlikely possibility, it does illustrate the point that car manufacturers alone do not have the moral authority to make the decision in their cars. What moral basis should be used by an automated vehicle to make decisions?

In 2016 Germany’s transport minister, Alexander Dobrint, proposed a bill to provide the first legal framework for autonomous vehicles. Dobrindt laid out three rules: for a car always to opt for property damage over personal injury; for a car never to distinguish between humans based on categories such as age or race, and for the car’s manufacturer to be liable if there is a collision after a human removes his or her hands from the steering wheel.

While this is a start, it does not solve the problem. Researchers have suggested two ethical theories: one being utilitarianism. Utilitarianism emphasises the most good for the most people: in this scenario, the most people survive. This implies the car will minimise the total quantity of harm from the accident. This can possibly contradict point two of Dobrint’s policy: where the autonomous vehicle might discriminate against people in the scenario. Another problem to consider would be the technical challenges for implementing utilitarian ethics: namely, the impossible computing power needed to process all possible outcomes within such a short timeframe: which may end up causing more harm than good.

A possible solution that requires more thought and testing would be the suggestion that automated vehicles should adapt to a mix of multiple theories to be able to morally respond in the instance of a crash.

It is important to note, however, the numerous benefits of an autonomous vehicle. Driving safety experts estimate at least 90% of vehicle accidents are the result of human error. Adopting autonomous vehicles on a wider scale could eliminate this issue, while also outperforming human drivers in perception, decision-making and execution. The video attached shows an example: where Tesla Autopilot avoids a truck that the driver had not even noticed. Autopilot Saves Model S

Around the world, autonomous cars could save 10 million lives per decade, creating one of the most important public health advances of the 21st century. 

Vehicle automation, on a large scale, could also incentivise less car ownership, where carpools or buses are used more frequently. The optimised drives in the autonomous vehicles could also lead to a decrease in traffic, further reducing environmental pollution.

Driverless cars are an inevitability. The effects of the automobile industry shifting on globally towards steering wheel-optional cars and beyond are largely uncertain. What we do know for certain is that they will help curb emissions, reduce fatalities, and conversely, they could cause chaos for countries whose laws are not prepared for the autonomous vehicle boom.