Driving in the Dark: Designing Autonomous Vehicles for Reducing Light Pollution.

This paper proposes that autonomous vehicles should be designed to reduce light pollution. In support of this specific proposal, a moral assessment of autonomous vehicles more comprehensive than the dilemmatic life-and-death questions of trolley problem-style situations is presented. The paper therefore consists of two interrelated arguments. The first is that autonomous vehicles are currently still a technology in development, and not one that has acquired its definitive shape, meaning the design of both the vehicles and the surrounding infrastructure is open-ended. Design for values is utilized to articulate a path forward, by which engineering ethics should strive to incorporate values into a technology during its development phase. Second, it is argued that nighttime lighting-a critical supporting infrastructure-should be a prima facie consideration for autonomous vehicles during their development phase. It is shown that a reduction in light pollution, and more boldly a better balance of lighting and darkness, can be achieved via the design of future autonomous vehicles. Two case studies are examined (parking lots and highways) through which autonomous vehicles may be designed for "driving in the dark." Nighttime lighting issues are thus inserted into a broader ethics of autonomous vehicles, while simultaneously introducing questions of autonomous vehicles into debates about light pollution.

Human Decisions in Moral Dilemmas are Largely Described by Utilitarianism: Virtual Car Driving Study Provides Guidelines for Autonomous Driving Vehicles.

Ethical thought experiments such as the trolley dilemma have been investigated extensively in the past, showing that humans act in utilitarian ways, trying to cause as little overall damage as possible. These trolley dilemmas have gained renewed attention over the past few years, especially due to the necessity of implementing moral decisions in autonomous driving vehicles (ADVs). We conducted a set of experiments in which participants experienced modified trolley dilemmas as drivers in virtual reality environments. Participants had to make decisions between driving in one of two lanes where different obstacles came into view. Eventually, the participants had to decide which of the objects they would crash into. Obstacles included a variety of human-like avatars of different ages and group sizes. Furthermore, the influence of sidewalks as potential safe harbors and a condition implicating self-sacrifice were tested. Results showed that participants, in general, decided in a utilitarian manner, sparing the highest number of avatars possible with a limited influence by the other variables. Derived from these findings, which are in line with the utilitarian approach in moral decision making, it will be argued for an obligatory ethics setting implemented in ADVs.

Self-Driving Cars and Engineering Ethics: The Need for a System Level Analysis.

The literature on self-driving cars and ethics continues to grow. Yet much of it focuses on ethical complexities emerging from an individual vehicle. That is an important but insufficient step towards determining how the technology will impact human lives and society more generally. What must complement ongoing discussions is a broader, system level of analysis that engages with the interactions and effects that these cars will have on one another and on the socio-technical systems in which they are embedded. To bring the conversation of self-driving cars to the system level, we make use of two traffic scenarios which highlight some of the complexities that designers, policymakers, and others should consider related to the technology. We then describe three approaches that could be used to address such complexities and their associated shortcomings. We conclude by bringing attention to the "Moral Responsibility for Computing Artifacts: The Rules", a framework that can provide insight into how to approach ethical issues related to self-driving cars.

Subsidies to Increase Remote Pollution?

During the last decade, Central Europe became a cynosure for the world for its unparalleled public support for renewable energy. For instance, the production of electricity from purpose-grown biomass received approximately twice the amount in subsidies as that produced from biowaste. Moreover, the guaranteed purchase price of electricity from solar panels was set approximately five times higher than that from conventional sources. This controversial environmental donation policy led to the devastation of large areas of arable land, a worsening of food availability, unprecedented market distortions, and serious threats to national budgets, among other things. Now, the first proposals to donate the purchase price of electric vehicles (and related infrastructure) from national budgets have appeared for public debate. Advocates of these ideas argue that they can solve the issue of electricity overproduction, and that electric vehicles will reduce emissions in cities. However, our analysis reveals that, as a result of previous scandals, environmental issues have become less significant to local citizens. Given that electric cars are not yet affordable for most people, in terms of local purchasing power, this action would further undermine national budgets. Furthermore, while today's electromobiles produce zero pollution when operated, their sum of emissions (i.e. global warming potential) remains much higher than that of conventional combustion engines. Therefore, we conclude that the mass usage of electromobiles could result in the unethical improvement of a city environment at the expense of marginal regions.

Autonomous Cars: In Favor of a Mandatory Ethics Setting.

The recent progress in the development of autonomous cars has seen ethical questions come to the forefront. In particular, life and death decisions regarding the behavior of self-driving cars in trolley dilemma situations are attracting widespread interest in the recent debate. In this essay we want to ask whether we should implement a mandatory ethics setting (MES) for the whole of society or, whether every driver should have the choice to select his own personal ethics setting (PES). While the consensus view seems to be that people would not be willing to use an automated car that might sacrifice themselves in a dilemma situation, we will defend the somewhat contra-intuitive claim that this would be nevertheless in their best interest. The reason is, simply put, that a PES regime would most likely result in a prisoner's dilemma.

Responsibility for crashes of autonomous vehicles: an ethical analysis.

A number of companies including Google and BMW are currently working on the development of autonomous cars. But if fully autonomous cars are going to drive on our roads, it must be decided who is to be held responsible in case of accidents. This involves not only legal questions, but also moral ones. The first question discussed is whether we should try to design the tort liability for car manufacturers in a way that will help along the development and improvement of autonomous vehicles. In particular, Patrick Lin's concern that any security gain derived from the introduction of autonomous cars would constitute a trade-off in human lives will be addressed. The second question is whether it would be morally permissible to impose liability on the user based on a duty to pay attention to the road and traffic and to intervene when necessary to avoid accidents. Doubts about the moral legitimacy of such a scheme are based on the notion that it is a form of defamation if a person is held to blame for causing the death of another by his inattention if he never had a real chance to intervene. Therefore, the legitimacy of such an approach would depend on the user having an actual chance to do so. The last option discussed in this paper is a system in which a person using an autonomous vehicle has no duty (and possibly no way) of interfering, but is still held (financially, not criminally) responsible for possible accidents. Two ways of doing so are discussed, but only one is judged morally feasible.

Drivers are blamed more than their automated cars when both make mistakes.

When an automated car harms someone, who is blamed by those who hear about it? Here we asked human participants to consider hypothetical cases in which a pedestrian was killed by a car operated under shared control of a primary and a secondary driver and to indicate how blame should be allocated. We find that when only one driver makes an error, that driver is blamed more regardless of whether that driver is a machine or a human. However, when both drivers make errors in cases of human-machine shared-control vehicles, the blame attributed to the machine is reduced. This finding portends a public under-reaction to the malfunctioning artificial intelligence components of automated cars and therefore has a direct policy implication: allowing the de facto standards for shared-control vehicles to be established in courts by the jury system could fail to properly regulate the safety of those vehicles; instead, a top-down scheme (through federal laws) may be called for.

Who is responsible for automated driving? A macro-level insight into automated driving in the United Kingdom using the Risk Management Framework and Social Network Analysis.

To date, vehicle manufacturers have largely been left to their own initiatives when it comes to the design, development and implementation of automated driving features. Whilst this has enabled developments within the field to accelerate at a rapid pace, we are also now beginning to see the negative aspects of automated design (e.g., driver complacency, automation misuse and ethical dilemmas). It is therefore becoming increasingly important to identify systemic aspects that can address some of these Human Factors challenges. This paper applies the principles of the Risk Management Framework to explore the wider systemic issues associated with automated driving in the United Kingdom through the novel application of network metrics. The authors propose a number of recommendations targeted at each level of the Risk Management Framework that seek to shift the power of influence away from vehicle manufacturers and back into the hands of governing bodies.

Children's secondhand smoke exposure in private homes and cars: an ethical analysis.

Secondhand smoke (SHS) exposure is a known cause of disease among nonsmokers, contributing to lung cancer, heart disease, and sudden infant death syndrome, as well as other diseases. In response to the growing body of scientific literature linking SHS with serious diseases, many countries, states, and cities have established policies mandating smoke-free public spaces. Yet thousands of children remain unprotected from exposure to SHS in private homes and cars. New initiatives targeting SHS in these spaces have raised ethical questions about imposing constraints on private behavior. We reviewed legislation and court cases related to such initiatives and used a principlist approach to analyze the ethical implications of policies banning smoking in private cars and homes in which children are present.

Spying or steering? Views of parents of young novice drivers on the use and ethics of driver-monitoring technologies.

In-vehicle technologies that document driving practices have the potential to enhance the driving safety of young drivers, but their installation depends largely on their parents' willingness and raises ethical dilemmas. This study investigated, using closed and open-ended questions, the views of 906 parents of young drivers in Israel regarding their willingness to install such a technology, and their conceptions of social norms and ethical issues associated with the technology and of factors that would encourage or discourage parents to adopt it. Most believed parents should feel morally obligated to install it. When cost was not a consideration, most said they would, and believed other parents would be willing to install the technology. Fewer (about half) expressed willingness to install it after being told about its estimated cost. Monetary cost was rated as a barrier to install it by about half. Environmental considerations were viewed as an incentive. Parents who supported the installation believed it would serve as a trigger for parent-young driver communication but those who did not thought it would erode trust in the parent-young driver relationship. Most said parents should have access to the monitoring data. Policy implications regarding issues of privacy and resources for parents are discussed.