Blaming humans in autonomous vehicle accidents: Shared responsibility across levels of automation

When a semi-autonomous car crashes and harms someone, how are blame and causal responsibility distributed across the human and machine drivers? In this article, we consider cases in which a pedestrian was hit and killed by a car being operated under shared control of a primary and a secondary driver. We find that when only one driver makes an error, that driver receives the blame and is considered causally responsible for the harm, regardless of whether that driver is a machine or a human. However, when both drivers make errors in cases of shared control between a human and a machine, the blame and responsibility attributed to the machine is reduced. This finding portends a public under-reaction to the malfunctioning AI components of semi-autonomous cars and therefore has a direct policy implication: a bottom-up regulatory scheme (which operates through tort law that is adjudicated through the jury system) could fail to properly regulate the safety of shared-control vehicles; instead, a top-down scheme (enacted through federal laws) may be called for.

[1]  M. Alicke.  Culpable control and the psychology of blame. , 2000, Psychological bulletin.

[2]  Joshua D. Greene.  Moral Tribes: Emotion, Reason, and the Gap Between Us and Them , 2001 .

[3]  Joseph Y. Halpern,et al.  Responsibility and Blame: A Structural-Model Approach , 2003, IJCAI.

[4]  J. Knobe.  Intentional action in folk psychology: An experimental investigation , 2003 .

[5]  J. Knobe,et al.  Cause and Norm , 2009 .

[6]  R. Nader.  Unsafe at any speed: the designed in dangers of the American automobile , 2011 .

[7]  John Mikhail.  Elements of Moral Cognition: Rawls' Linguistic Analogy and the Cognitive Science of Moral and Legal Judgment , 2011 .

[8]  Tobias Gerstenberg,et al.  When contributions make a difference: Explaining order effects in responsibility attribution , 2012, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review.

[9]  Tobias Gerstenberg,et al.  Finding fault: Causality and counterfactuals in group attributions , 2012, Cognition.

[10]  Kurt Gray,et al.  Mind Perception Is the Essence of Morality , 2012, Psychological inquiry.

[11]  S. Sloman,et al.  Causality in thought. , 2015, Annual review of psychology.

[12]  Berkeley J. Dietvorst,et al.  Algorithm Aversion: People Erroneously Avoid Algorithms after Seeing Them Err , 2014, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[13]  Joshua B. Tenenbaum,et al.  How, whether, why: Causal judgments as counterfactual contrasts , 2015, CogSci.

[14]  F. Cushman.  Deconstructing intent to reconstruct morality , 2015 .

[15]  Matthias Scheutz,et al.  Sacrifice One For the Good of Many? People Apply Different Moral Norms to Human and Robot Agents , 2015, 2015 10th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[16]  Iyad Rahwan,et al.  The social dilemma of autonomous vehicles , 2015, Science.

[17]  Wendy Ju,et al.  From Trolley to Autonomous Vehicle: Perceptions of Responsibility and Moral Norms in Traffic Accidents with Self-Driving Cars , 2016 .

[18]  E. Markman,et al.  Rethinking people’s conceptions of mental life , 2017, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[19]  A. Shariff,et al.  Psychological roadblocks to the adoption of self-driving vehicles , 2017, Nature Human Behaviour.

[20]  Mark A. Geistfeld.  A Roadmap for Autonomous Vehicles: State Tort Liability, Automobile Insurance, and Federal Safety Regulation , 2017 .