Utilitarianism and Ethical Issues in Driverless Cars

AP Photo, Matt York

Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that evaluates actions based on their ability to produce the greatest overall happiness or well-being for the greatest number of people. In the context of autonomous vehicles and reducing the risk of road accidents, applying utilitarian principles can raise ethical dilemmas and challenges.

Utilitarian Approach to Reducing Road Accidents: From a utilitarian perspective, the primary goal of autonomous vehicles should be to minimize harm and maximize overall well-being by reducing road accidents and their associated negative consequences. This would involve prioritizing actions that lead to the least harm for the greatest number of people.

Challenges and Ethical Dilemmas:

1. Trolley Problem Scenario: One of the most well-known ethical dilemmas in the context of autonomous vehicles is the “trolley problem.” In this scenario, an autonomous vehicle may need to make a life-and-death decision when faced with an unavoidable accident. For instance, the vehicle might have to choose between colliding with a group of pedestrians or swerving and endangering the life of the vehicle’s occupant. Utilitarianism might suggest sacrificing the occupant’s safety for the greater good of saving more lives outside the vehicle.

Trolley problem (Wikipedia)

1. Potential Sacrifice of Vulnerable Road Users: Utilitarianism may prioritize the safety of a larger group, which could lead to concerns about the potential sacrifice of vulnerable road users, such as pedestrians or cyclists, in favour of protecting the occupants of the autonomous vehicle.

The Guardian: Collision course: why are cars killing more and more pedestrians?

The question of whether “freedom of movement” or “safety of traffic” is significant, complex and nuanced. Both aspects are essential, and striking a balance between them is crucial for creating a safe and inclusive transportation system in the context of autonomous vehicles.

Safety of Traffic: Safety is of utmost importance when it comes to transportation. Autonomous vehicles have the potential to significantly reduce accidents caused by human errors such as distracted driving, speeding, or impaired driving. If roads are closed to pedestrians and cyclists, it can create a controlled environment where autonomous vehicles can operate without unpredictable movements from pedestrians or cyclists, potentially leading to enhanced safety.

By closing roads, it may be easier for autonomous vehicles to navigate without sudden obstacles or unexpected behavior from pedestrians and cyclists, leading to more predictable traffic conditions. With reduced interactions between vehicles and vulnerable road users, the risk of accidents might decrease, making roads safer for all.

Freedom of Movement: At the same time, restricting access to roads for pedestrians and cyclists can limit their freedom of movement and may not be the most desirable solution from a societal perspective. Pedestrians and cyclists have the right to use public spaces, and restricting their access may lead to issues related to accessibility, mobility equity, and social inclusion.

Promoting active transportation like walking and cycling is not only beneficial for individual health but also for the environment and reducing congestion. By limiting the use of roads by pedestrians and cyclists, we may discourage active modes of transportation and potentially lead to less active and more sedentary lifestyles.

The Importance of Balance: In reality, the answer is not a simple choice between one or the other. It’s crucial to find a balance between ensuring safety for autonomous vehicles and maintaining the freedom of movement for pedestrians and cyclists. Achieving this balance may involve measures such as:

1. Designing Safe Spaces: Creating separate lanes or paths for pedestrians and cyclists can ensure their safety while also allowing them to move freely without directly affecting autonomous vehicle traffic.
2. Public Education: Educating both drivers of autonomous vehicles and vulnerable road users about safe interactions can help mitigate potential conflicts and enhance safety.
3. Technological Advancements: Continued advancements in AI and autonomous vehicle technology should focus on improving safety while accommodating the presence of pedestrians and cyclists.
4. Urban Planning: Thoughtful urban planning can integrate autonomous vehicles into pedestrian-friendly cityscapes, promoting safety for all road users.

Public Uprising Against Robotaxis in San Francisco

In light of the protests in San Francisco (SF) over driverless cars, the societal implications of automating transportation has never been so critical. From the picture below, a protester from the Safe Street Rebels is seen wearing dark clothes is placing a corn on the hood of the car in the attempt to immobilise it. SF being a Mecca of tech and innovation, one that I remember from the PlayStation One game called Driver, had a map where we drove in SF. The hilly terrain, trains and skyways made for a difficult driving, or being virtual navigation control.

Members of Safe Street Rebel place a cone on a self-driving Cruise car in San Francisco. Credit: Josh Edelson/AFP via Getty Images

Safe Street Rebel is an anonymous activist group that has been protesting self-driving cars in SF since July 2023. The group’s members place traffic cones on the hoods of self-driving cars, which triggers a safety system that disables the cars. Safe Street Rebel says that it is protesting self-driving cars because they are unsafe, pose a threat to pedestrians and cyclists, and will lead to increased traffic congestion.

The group’s actions have been met with mixed reactions. Some people support the group’s goals, while others believe that its methods are dangerous and counterproductive. The San Francisco Police Department has said that it is investigating the group’s activities.

Here are some of the group’s complaints about self-driving cars:

• They are not safe. Self-driving cars have been involved in a number of accidents, some of which have been fatal.
• They pose a threat to pedestrians and cyclists. Self-driving cars may not be able to see pedestrians and cyclists as well as human drivers, and they may not be able to respond to them quickly enough to avoid accidents.
• They will lead to increased traffic congestion. Self-driving cars are expected to increase the number of vehicles on the road, which could lead to more traffic congestion.

Safe Street Rebel is calling for a moratorium on the testing and deployment of self-driving cars in San Francisco. The group also wants the city to invest in public transportation and other alternatives to cars.

Where Did It All Go Wrong?

Not specifically with the SF rebellion against driverless cars but the general notion of correctly deploying a technology is that (a) seen as a force of good and, (b) has in its implementation framework risk mitigation pipelines. Here’s what I think;

1. Public Perception and Acceptance: Implementing a utilitarian approach might raise ethical concerns among the general public. People might be hesitant to use autonomous vehicles if they believe the technology prioritizes the greater good over their individual safety.
2. Difficulty in Defining “Greatest Good”: Determining what constitutes the “greatest good” or well-being in the context of autonomous vehicles can be challenging. Different stakeholders may have conflicting interpretations of what is best for society.

Balancing Ethical Principles

Addressing these challenges requires striking a balance between utilitarian principles and other ethical considerations, such as individual rights, fairness, and societal values. Some potential approaches to address these dilemmas include:

1. Transparency and Public Input: Involving the public in discussions about ethical decision-making algorithms can ensure that societal values and preferences are considered.
2. Adaptable Ethics Settings: Allowing users to customize the ethical settings of their autonomous vehicles within certain ethical boundaries might promote acceptance and personal autonomy.
3. Ethics by Design: Integrating multiple ethical principles during the development of autonomous vehicle algorithms to prioritize safety while considering other moral considerations.
4. Legislative Framework: Implementing legal guidelines and regulations that balance safety and ethical concerns in autonomous vehicle decision-making.

Conclusion

In conclusion, both “freedom of movement” and “safety of traffic” are important considerations. Striking a balance between the two requires thoughtful planning, collaboration, and technological advancements to create a transportation system that prioritizes safety while ensuring inclusivity and accessibility for all road users.

The debate over self-driving cars is likely to continue for many years to come. Safe Street Rebel is just one of many groups that are raising concerns about the safety and impact of this emerging technology.

While utilitarianism can provide a valuable ethical framework for reducing road accidents with autonomous vehicles, it also presents challenges and ethical dilemmas. A comprehensive approach that considers various ethical principles, public input, and legal regulations is necessary to strike a balance between maximizing overall well-being and respecting individual rights and societal values.

References

First Photo: AP Photo,Matt York, https://news.azpm.org/p/news-topical-sci/2023/5/4/215865-waymo-robotaxis-make-more-inroads-in-phoenix-san-francisco/

Dara Kerr, NPR, Armed with traffic cones, protesters are immobilizing driverless cars https://www.npr.org/2023/08/26/1195695051/driverless-cars-san-francisco-waymo-cruise