Ethical Decision Making during Automated Vehicle Crashes

Automated vehicles have received much attention recently, particularly the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency Urban Challenge vehicles, Google's self-driving cars, and various others from auto manufacturers. These vehicles have the potential to reduce crashes and improve roadway efficiency significantly by automating the responsibilities of the driver. Still, automated vehicles are expected to crash occasionally, even when all sensors, vehicle control components, and algorithms function perfectly. If a human driver is unable to take control in time, a computer will be responsible for precrash behavior. Unlike other automated vehicles, such as aircraft, in which every collision is catastrophic, and unlike guided track systems, which can avoid collisions only in one dimension, automated roadway vehicles can predict various crash trajectory alternatives and select a path with the lowest damage or likelihood of collision. In some situations, the preferred path may be ambiguous. The study reported here investigated automated vehicle crashing and concluded the following: (a) automated vehicles would almost certainly crash, (b) an automated vehicle's decisions that preceded certain crashes had a moral component, and (c) there was no obvious way to encode complex human morals effectively in software. The paper presents a three-phase approach to develop ethical crashing algorithms; the approach consists of a rational approach, an artificial intelligence approach, and a natural language requirement. The phases are theoretical and should be implemented as the technology becomes available.

[1]  E. D. Dickmanns,et al.  The development of machine vision for road vehicles in the last decade , 2002, Intelligent Vehicle Symposium, 2002. IEEE.

[2]  Dean A. Pomerleau,et al.  Applying Advanced Learning Algorithms to ALVINN , 1999 .

[3]  Hajime Asama,et al.  Inevitable collision states — a step towards safer robots? , 2004, Adv. Robotics.

[4]  Christian Laugier,et al.  Autonomous Navigation in Dynamic Environments , 2007 .

[5]  Luke Muehlhauser,et al.  Intelligence Explosion: Evidence and Import , 2012 .

[6]  L Evans,et al.  Causal influence of car mass and size on driver fatality risk. , 2001, American journal of public health.

[7]  Charles A. Green,et al.  Human Factors Issues Associated with Limited Ability Autonomous Driving Systems: Drivers’ Allocation of Visual Attention to the Forward Roadway , 2017 .

[8]  Thierry Fraichard,et al.  Inevitable Collision States: A probabilistic perspective , 2010, 2010 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation.

[9]  Dot Hs,et al.  The 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study Phase II - Results of the 100-Car Field Experiment , 2006 .

[10]  Joseph M. Nolan,et al.  Characteristics of Small Overlap Crashes , 2009 .

[11]  Noah J. Goodall,et al.  Machine Ethics and Automated Vehicles , 2020, ArXiv.

[12]  Peter Norvig,et al.  Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach , 1995 .

[13]  T. Kathirvalavakumar,et al.  Reverse Engineering the Neural Networks for Rule Extraction in Classification Problems , 2011, Neural Processing Letters.

[14]  Dean A. Pomerleau,et al.  RALPH: rapidly adapting lateral position handler , 1995, Proceedings of the Intelligent Vehicles '95. Symposium.

[15]  Michael S. Pritchard,et al.  Moral Machines? , 2012, Science and Engineering Ethics.

[16]  Thomas A. Dingus,et al.  The 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study Phase II – Results of the 100-Car Field Experiment , 2006 .

[17]  C. Allen,et al.  Moral Machines: Teaching Robots Right from Wrong , 2008 .

[18]  Steve Scheding,et al.  Developments and Challenges for Autonomous Unmanned Vehicles - A Compendium , 2010, Intelligent Systems Reference Library.

[19]  Bill Hibbard,et al.  Avoiding Unintended AI Behaviors , 2012, AGI.

[20]  Marcello Guarini,et al.  Particularism and the Classification and Reclassification of Moral Cases , 2006, IEEE Intelligent Systems.

[21]  Ronald C. Arkin,et al.  Governing Lethal Behavior in Autonomous Robots , 2009 .

[22]  Thomas M. Powers,et al.  Incremental Machine Ethics , 2011, IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine.

[23]  Joachim Diederich,et al.  The truth will come to light: directions and challenges in extracting the knowledge embedded within trained artificial neural networks , 1998, IEEE Trans. Neural Networks.

[24]  L King,et al.  THE NEW AASHTO METRIC POLICY ON GEOMETRIC DESIGN OF HIGHWAYS AND STREETS , 1995 .

[25]  J. Horvat.  THE ETHICS OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE , 2016 .

[26]  Anthony F. Beavers.  Moral Machines and the Threat of Ethical Nihilism , 2010 .

[27]  Massimo Bertozzi,et al.  Architectural Issues on Vision-Based Automatic Vehicle Guidance: The Experience of the ARGO Project , 2000, Real Time Imaging.

[28]  L. Evans.  Death in Traffic: Why Are the Ethical Issues Ignored? , 2008 .

[29]  S. Emerson,et al.  AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials). 2001. A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. Fourth Edition. Washington, D.C. , 2007 .

[30]  Patrick Lin,et al.  Moral Machines and the Threat of Ethical Nihilism , 2012 .

[31]  William T. Hollowell,et al.  NHTSA’s Vehicle Compatibility Research Program , 1999 .

[32]  Dean A. Pomerleau,et al.  PANS: a portable navigation platform , 1995, Proceedings of the Intelligent Vehicles '95. Symposium.

[33]  K. Rumar.  The Role of Perceptual and Cognitive Filters in Observed Behavior , 1985 .

[34]  A. Church,et al.  Astounding Science Fiction. , 1952 .

[35]  Rodrigo Benenson,et al.  Achievable safety of driverless ground vehicles , 2008, 2008 10th International Conference on Control, Automation, Robotics and Vision.