The driverless dilemma: who to save in no-win crash situations
Addressing the vital question of what driverless cars should do in no-win crash situations, an AA survey of 21,000 UK drivers found that 59% would rather put themselves in harm’s way than risk more lives.
That seems highly magnanimous, but other results were far from clear-cut. 40% of respondents “preferred not to say” when faced with unpalatable options like running over children or the elderly.
AA president, Edmund King, said: “Of those who could make a choice, a clear majority decided to put themselves in danger, perhaps indicating they accept the risks and potential fallibilities of the technology.
“The driverless dilemma is a common question for programmers of autonomous vehicles, but the number of people who avoided giving a definitive answer shows this is a difficult ‘live or let die’ dilemma.”
The AA survey broadly backs up the findings outlined in Reasons to fear driverless cars – namely that most people agree:
1) Humans should be saved over animals.
2) The lives of many should outweigh the few.
3) The young should have priority over the old.
But it isn’t that simple. The waters get murky when people are asked if they would rather purchase a car programmed to protect them.
Azim Shariff, of the University of Oregon, asks: “Would you really want to be among the minority shouldering the duties of safety, when everyone else is free-riding, so to speak, on your equitability?”
Will all manufacturers apply the same default settings? Should owners be able to change them?
It is a huge concern that driverless cars could be on sale by 2021 when we’re not even close to answering such fundamental questions.
