Liability Design for Autonomous Vehicles and Human-Driven Vehicles: A Hierarchical Game-Theoretic Approach

Autonomous vehicles (AVs) are inevitably entering our lives with potential benefits for improved traffic safety, mobility, and accessibility. However, AVs’ benefits also introduce a serious potential challenge, in the form of complex interactions with human-driven vehicles (HVs). The emergence of AVs introduces uncertainty in the behavior of human actors and in the impact of the AV manufacturer on autonomous driving design. This paper thus aims to investigate how AVs affect road safety and to design socially optimal liability rules in comparative negligence for AVs and human drivers. A unified game is developed, including a Nash game between human drivers, a Stackelberg game between the AV manufacturer and HVs, and a Stackelberg game between the law maker and other users. We also establish the existence and uniqueness of the equilibrium of the game. The game is then simulated with numerical examples to investigate the emergence of human drivers’ moral hazard, the AV manufacturer’s role in traffic safety, and the law maker’s role in liability design. Our findings demonstrate that human drivers could develop moral hazard if they perceive their road environment has become safer and an optimal liability rule design is crucial to improve social welfare with advanced transportation technologies. More generally, the game-theoretic model developed in this paper provides an analytical tool to assist policy-makers in AV policymaking and hopefully mitigate uncertainty in the existing regulation landscape about AV technologies.

[1]  J. Goodman Note on Existence and Uniqueness of Equilibrium Points for Concave N-Person Games , 1965 .

[2]  Georges Dionne,et al.  Economics of road safety. , 1987, Lancet.

[3]  Gary T. Schwartz,et al.  Contributory and Comparative Negligence: A Reappraisal , 1978 .

[4]  G. Leitmann On generalized Stackelberg strategies , 1978 .

[5]  Alf Erling Risa Public regulation of private accident risk: The moral hazard of technological improvements , 1992 .

[6]  Steven A. Shafer,et al.  A computational model of driving for autonomous vehicles , 1993 .

[7]  William H. K. Lam,et al.  Transportation Research, Part A: Policy and Practice , 1997 .

[8]  T Assum,et al.  Risk compensation--the case of road lighting. , 1999, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[9]  Hai Yang,et al.  Competition and Equilibria of Private Toll Roads in a Traffic Network , 2000 .

[10]  Pål Andreas Pedersen,et al.  A Game Theoretical Approach to Road Safety , 2001 .

[11]  Dot Hs,et al.  The 100 Car Naturalistic Driving Study , 2002 .

[12]  Satish K. Jain,et al.  Efficient Liability Rules: Complete Characterization , 2002 .

[13]  P. A. Pedersen Moral Hazard in Traffic Games , 2003 .

[14]  Francesco Parisi,et al.  COMPARATIVE CAUSATION , 2003 .

[15]  Steven Shavell,et al.  Liability for Accidents , 2005 .

[16]  Seung-Jae Lee,et al.  A Continuous Network Design Model in Stochastic User Equilibrium Based on Sensitivity Analysis , 2005 .

[17]  Henrik Andersson,et al.  The Value of Safety as Revealed in the Swedish Car Market: An Application of the Hedonic Pricing Approach , 2005 .

[18]  Georges Dionne,et al.  Foundations of Economic Analysis of Law , 2006 .

[19]  Thomas A. Dingus,et al.  The Impact of Driver Inattention on Near-Crash/Crash Risk: An Analysis Using the 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study Data , 2006 .

[20]  HARRY A. COOPER,et al.  A GUIDE FOR POLICYMAKERS , 2007 .

[21]  Ram Singh,et al.  Comparative Causation and Economic Efficiency: When Activity Levels are Constant , 2007 .

[22]  Steven Shavell,et al.  Chapter 2 Liability for Accidents , 2007 .

[23]  C. Farmer,et al.  Reducing red light running through longer yellow signal timing and red light camera enforcement: results of a field investigation. , 2008, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[24]  Keith N. Hylton,et al.  The Law and Economics of Products Liability , 2012 .

[25]  Gary E. Marchant,et al.  The Coming Collision Between Autonomous Vehicles and the Liability System , 2012 .

[26]  Indrajit Chatterjee,et al.  Evolutionary Game Theoretic Approach to Rear-End Events on Congested Freeway , 2013 .

[27]  Jef P. B. De Mot Comparative versus contributory negligence: a comparison of the litigation expenditures , 2013 .

[28]  Reza Langari,et al.  A Stackelberg Game Theoretic Driver Model for Merging , 2013 .

[29]  Daniel J. Fagnant,et al.  Preparing a Nation for Autonomous Vehicles: Opportunities, Barriers and Policy Recommendations , 2015 .

[30]  Reza Langari,et al.  Game theory based autonomous vehicles operation , 2014 .

[31]  Nidhi Kalra,et al.  Autonomous Vehicle Technology: A Guide for Policymakers , 2014 .

[32]  Rune Elvik,et al.  A review of game-theoretic models of road user behaviour. , 2014, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[33]  Jef De Mota,et al.  Comparative versus contributory negligence: a comparison of the litigation expenditures , 2013 .

[34]  Meng Wang,et al.  Game theoretic approach for predictive lane-changing and car-following control , 2015 .

[35]  Hani S. Mahmassani,et al.  Modeling Lane-Changing Behavior in a Connected Environment: A Game Theory Approach , 2015 .

[36]  Julian Nida-Rümelin,et al.  Responsibility for Crashes of Autonomous Vehicles: An Ethical Analysis , 2014, Science and Engineering Ethics.

[37]  Meng Wang,et al.  Cooperative Car-Following Control: Distributed Algorithm and Impact on Moving Jam Features , 2016, IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems.

[38]  Alireza Talebpour,et al.  Influence of connected and autonomous vehicles on traffic flow stability and throughput , 2016 .

[39]  Bryant Walker Smith,et al.  Automated Driving and Product Liability , 2016 .

[40]  Adam Millard-Ball,et al.  Pedestrians, Autonomous Vehicles, and Cities , 2016 .

[41]  Indrajit Chatterjee,et al.  Understanding Driver Contributions to Rear-End Crashes on Congested Freeways and their Implications for Future Safety Measures , 2016 .

[42]  Lili Du,et al.  Constrained optimization and distributed computation based car following control of a connected and autonomous vehicle platoon , 2016 .

[43]  Nidhi Kalra,et al.  Driving to Safety , 2016 .

[44]  Don MacKenzie,et al.  Help or hindrance? The travel, energy and carbon impacts of highly automated vehicles , 2016 .

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

[46]  Lili Du,et al.  Cooperative platoon control for a mixed traffic flow including human drive vehicles and connected and autonomous vehicles , 2018, Transportation Research Part B: Methodological.

[47]  Nan Li,et al.  Game Theoretic Modeling of Driver and Vehicle Interactions for Verification and Validation of Autonomous Vehicle Control Systems , 2016, IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology.

[48]  Leonardo Badia,et al.  Game Theoretic Analysis of Road User Safety Scenarios Involving Autonomous Vehicles , 2018, 2018 IEEE 29th Annual International Symposium on Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications (PIMRC).

[49]  e-traces,et al.  Self-Driving Uber Car Kills Pedestrian in Arizona, Where Robots Roam - e-traces , 2018 .

[50]  Reza Langari,et al.  A human-like game theory-based controller for automatic lane changing , 2018 .

[51]  Kuang Huang,et al.  A Game-Theoretic Framework for Autonomous Vehicles Velocity Control: Bridging Microscopic Differential Games and Macroscopic Mean Field Games , 2019, Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B.

[52]  R. Saigal,et al.  Accelerating the Adoption of Automated Vehicles by Subsidies: A Dynamic Games Approach , 2018, Transportation Research Part B: Methodological.

[53]  Eva Fraedrich,et al.  Autonomous driving, the built environment and policy implications , 2019, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice.

[54]  Kristin E. Schaefer,et al.  It takes two to Tango: Automated vehicles and human beings do the dance of driving – Four social considerations for policy , 2019, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice.

[55]  Steven E Shladover,et al.  Regulatory challenges for road vehicle automation: Lessons from the California experience , 2017, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice.

[56]  T. Kuhnimhof,et al.  Does context matter? A comparative study modelling autonomous vehicle impact on travel behaviour for Germany and the USA , 2019, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice.

[57]  Steven Shavell,et al.  On the Redesign of Accident Liability for the World of Autonomous Vehicles , 2019, The Journal of Legal Studies.

[58]  Eric Wood,et al.  Quantifying autonomous vehicles national fuel consumption impacts: A data-rich approach , 2017, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice.

[59]  Vincent Marchau,et al.  Editorial for the special issue – Autonomous vehicle policy , 2019, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice.

[60]  Kuang Huang,et al.  Stabilizing Traffic via Autonomous Vehicles: A Continuum Mean Field Game Approach , 2019, 2019 IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems Conference (ITSC).

[61]  Xuan Di,et al.  An LSTM-Based Autonomous Driving Model Using Waymo Open Dataset , 2020, Applied Sciences.

[62]  Xuan Di,et al.  Scalable traffic stability analysis in mixed-autonomy using continuum models , 2020 .