TOPIC GUIDE: Autonomous vehicles
"Autonomous vehicles will make driving safer"
PUBLISHED: 26 Aug 2016
AUTHOR: Justine Brian
Share this Topic Guide:
In 2015 the UK’s first self-driving pod - the LUTZ Pathfinder – was made public by the government-funded Transport Systems Catapult [Ref: Transport Systems Catapult]. This follows in the wake of the launch in 2010 of technology giant Google’s Self-Driving Car project to “make driving safer, more enjoyable and more efficient.” [Ref: Google] Google asked us to imagine a point where: “Deaths from traffic accidents—over 1.2 million worldwide every year—could be reduced dramatically, especially since 94% of accidents in the U.S. involve human error” [Ref: Google], and Transport Systems Catapult additionally suggest that we could see, “a marked reduction in congestion as well as…benefits to the environment” from autonomous vehicles [Ref: Transport Systems Catapult]. The idea of ‘autonomous vehicles’ isn’t a new one [Ref: Computer History Museum], but the advent of these projects has caused both excitement and concern. Supporters of the new technology argue that: “The strongest case for self-driving cars is safety” [Ref: Guardian], whilst others are concerned that self-driving cars, “introduce a whole new category of road user…that entirely lacks an understanding that all those road users share” [Ref: Slate], and question how this new automated technology will integrate into a human-controlled and human-centred environment. Autonomous cars have hit the headlines recently following crashes [Ref: Wired, ABC News] in the USA [Ref: ABC News] and the first fatality brought about as a result of this new technology [Ref: Guardian ] has brought into focus the possible limitations of the technology, with some arguing that talk of automation and ‘autopilots’ “encourage people to think that the systems are more capable than they really are, and that is a serious problem.” [Ref: Scientific American] So is the future of driving a safer, autonomous one, or is that still a futuristic dream? What are the pros and cons of this new technology?
DEBATE IN CONTEXT
This section provides a summary of the key issues in the debate, set in the context of recent discussions and the competing positions that have been adopted.
One of the key motivations given for a move to autonomous cars is improving road safety. Cars that are able to anticipate risky situations and avoid them will, it is argued, reduce road-traffic accidents, “helping to make the roads safer for everyone.” [Ref: Telegraph] The small fleet of Google automated cars (both commercial makes and Google’s own prototype) have driven over a million miles within California since 2009 [Ref: Telegraph], but in February this year one of their vehicles had an accident and collided with a public transport bus [Ref: Financial Times], with Google admitting the computer made an “incorrect assumption about where [the bus] would go”, and that the crash would not be the last as “autonomy will always have some constraints” [Ref: Daily Mail, Daily Mail]. The first fatality involving a self-driving Uber occurred in Arizona last year: the car never even hit the brakes [Ref: Bloomberg]. This incident prompted questions about the effectiveness of the technology involved and whether it can bear “some responsibility” for incidents [Ref: Daily Mail], as well as the safety of autonomous vehicles more broadly. Whilst future autonomous vehicles might be able to safely “navigate roads, they don’t think like humans”, and some question whether autonomous cars can really be safe in an environment where they need to interact with humans, and as such, it will be difficult for them to “cope with the uncertainty and complexity of human behaviour.” [Ref: Popular Mechanics] But others call for perspective, asking us to consider “the number of crashes that occurred on the same day that were the result of human behaviour.” [Ref: BBC News]
Man vs Machine
For writer Carl Franzen, “the biggest issue with self-driving cars lies in their inability to make moral and ethical decisions for which human drivers have so far been almost entirely responsible. Would-be autonomous carmakers might be uncomfortable programming such choices into their systems, but human drivers make such momentous split-second decisions with regularity.” [Ref: Popular Mechanics] The development of artificial intelligence (AI), including in transport, has led some to consider ethical and moral questions about introducing this new technology into our lives. Human drivers make constant judgements – practical and moral – especially about the safety of ourselves and those around us, but will computers be programmed to do the same, and if so what decisions will their algorithms make? [Ref: Quartz, Guardian] “Here is the nature of the dilemma. Imagine that in the not-too-distant future, you own a self-driving car. One day, while you are driving along, an unfortunate set of events causes the car to head toward a crowd of 10 people crossing the road. It cannot stop in time but it can avoid killing 10 people by steering into a wall. However, this collision would kill you, the owner and occupant. What should it do?” [Ref: MIT Technology Review] Others contest that: “When machines take over, the work required of the human is typically not removed”, but rather our interaction with cars changes, and instead we will be a “monitor—one who constantly watches to detect and correct technology failures” and that we should welcome “a cooperative effort between humans and technology—one where the human plays a vital, active role in systems that optimize the interaction between the driver and the technology” [Ref: Newsweek]. Germany has introduced laws to this effect, instructing that drivers must be behind the wheel of autonomous cars and be alert: which then begs the question: why bother with a self-driving car if you still need a responsible human in the driving seat anyway? [Ref: Reuters]
Who takes responsibility?
One of the key questions in the debate about autonomous vehicles is who will be responsible in the event of an accident, and if we can hold a machine to account as we do people [Ref: Huffington Post]. The UK government - as well as several other EU countries - has already begun to put in place legislation to allow automated vehicles onto UK roads and to be insured under existing polices by 2020 [Ref: Auto Express, selfdrivingfutures] and in 2017, Germany became the first country to publish a set of ethical guidelines for self-driving cars [Ref: The Conversation]. But some argue that even if the law and ethics of autonomous vehicles are resolved: “Insurers still need to make confident judgments about risk, and this will be very difficult.” [Ref: Atlantic] To be able to make such judgements about risks, and responsibilities, the law currently requires someone, or something, to be ultimately accountable for decisions made. That raises the interesting idea of extending to robots “legal personhood’ which, argues one commentator, is “less about what is or is not a flesh-and-blood person and who/what is or is not able to be hauled into court.” [Ref: Atlantic] But British transport writer Christian Wolmar argues that our current focus on automation is misplaced and that even if the “legal, social, economic, political and practical” issues are resolved, an automated “takeover of the mainstream transport system is about as likely as the long-awaited arrival of the futuristic jet packs of 1960s comic books.” [Ref: New Statesman] Yet Google and other developers point to the prospect of the new technology opening up driving and mobility to many more of us, meaning, “everyone could get around easily and safely, regardless of their ability to drive. Ageing or visually impaired loved ones wouldn’t have to give up their independence. Time spent commuting could be time spent doing what you want to do.” [Ref: Google] So is a move to automation an unquestionable good for society, a threat to life, or a pipe dream?
It is crucial for debaters to have read the articles in this section, which provide essential information and arguments for and against the debate motion. Students will be expected to have additional evidence and examples derived from independent research, but they can expect to be criticised if they lack a basic familiarity with the issues raised in the essential reading.
Computer History Museum 2016
waymo 15 January 2019
Tim Gibson Telegraph 15 January 2016
Jemima Kiss Guardian 6 October 2015
Kevon Roose Fusion 5 October 2015
Robert Montenegro Big Think June 2015
Jamie Court Los Angeles Times 11 January 2019
Andrew Smith The Guardian 30 August 2018
Christian Wolmar New Statesman 10 April 2016
Brian Fung Washington Post 17 February 2016
Michael Nees Newsweek 10 May 2015
The Economist 1 March 2018
Nicola Davis The Guardian 15 February 2018
Martin Robbins The Guardian 14 June 2016
MIT Technology Review 22 October 2015
Lauren Keating Tech Times 28 July 2015
Carl Franzen Popular Mechanics 5 February 2015
Keith Kirkpatrick Communications 2015
Definitions of key concepts that are crucial for understanding the topic. Students should be familiar with these terms and the different ways in which they are used and interpreted and should be prepared to explain their significance.
Useful websites and materials that provide a good starting point for research.
Larry Greenemeier Scientific American 8 July 2016
NPR 1 July 2016
Mark Prig Daily Mail 14 March 2016
Andy Sharman Financial Times 20 January 2016
Alex Davies Wired 12 January 2016
Matt McFarland Los Angeles Times 22 December 2015
Keith Naughton Bloomberg 8 December 2015
Battle of Ideas 17 October 2015
Molly McHugh Wired 14 October 2015
Adrienne Lafrance Atlantic 9 October 2015
BBC Radio 4 26 September 2015
Michael Rundle The Huffington Post 4 December 2014
Alexis C. Madrigal Atlantic 13 August 2014
Oliver Balch Guardian 1 August 2014
BBC 8 November 2013
Bianca Bosca Huffington Post 25 October 2013
Patrick Lin Atlantic 8 October 2013
Samuel English Anthony Slate 2012
Transport Systems Catapult
Links to organisations, campaign groups and official bodies who are referenced within the Topic Guide or which will be of use in providing additional research information.
IN THE NEWS
Relevant recent news stories from a variety of sources, which ensure students have an up to date awareness of the state of the debate.
ABC News 1 July 2016
Auto Express 18 May 2016
Guardian 15 March 2016
BBC News 14 March 2016
Guardian 9 March 2016
Bloomberg 7 March 2016
Daily Mail 23 February 2016
BBC News 6 February 2016
Automotive News 10 January 2016
China.org 13 April 2015
Guardian 11 February 2015
Guardian 16 July 2014
Telegraph 29 October 2013
NPR 1 July 2016
Battle of Ideas 17 October 2015
BBC Radio 4 26 September 2015
This site contains links to websites operated by parties other than Debating Matters. Although we make every effort to ensure links are current, they will sometimes break after Topic Guide publication. If a link does not work, then the publication reference and date should enable you to find an alternate link. If you find a broken link do please send it to the webmaster for review.
TOPIC GUIDE MENU
Select the relevant option
Related topic guides