Accidents relating to self-driven cars have led to many debates among the public. This paper explores the subject of self-driven vehicles by identifying people that disagree and reasons for their disagreement in the given case study. Thereafter, an exploration of any philosophical principles applied in this case will be analyzed alongside any competing versions of autonomy which exist, if any. Lastly, an evaluation regarding the choices or decisions made in relation to the case in context will be done and suggestions are given on how to address the issues.
Summary of Case
Accidents arising from self-driven cars have aroused lots of debates from the public. A section of the public disagrees with the use of such technology. According to the public most self-driven vehicles can exercise control, especially when faced with an upcoming collision. The software used in developing these cars does not detect and respond to hazards in a spontaneous manner. This resulted in a lot of deaths for both passengers and pedestrians. A section of the public prefers that the autonomous vehicles should swerve. Others believe that the wisest thing for these cars is to remain in their lanes and exercise an emergency stop. The latter action has been preferred by the larger section of the public because most argue that this action conforms to the general rules of vehicle use. This approach would avoid collisions with the pedestrians using the road.
Identify people that disagree and their reasons for disagreements
Autonomous vehicle owners prefer to side with actions that would guard the safety of their passengers as opposed to pedestrians. The public feels that pedestrian safety is of great importance at all times. This has caused an ethical dilemma among the different parties involved. According to the AV owners, staying on the lane and applying an emergency brake is the morally acceptable thing to be done regardless of whether a pedestrian will be hit or not. On the contrary, the public feels that in the event that an AV is faced with a foreseen collision ahead, the car should swerve not to hit the pedestrian. According to the public, this is the most ethically acceptable action to be taken. Lastly, the ethical concerns arise from the manufacturing model of the autonomous vehicles. The system needs to be improved so that the cars can be able to detect any upcoming hazards and respond promptly.
Are there competing versions of autonomy?
There are two competing versions of autonomy. The first version is by the autonomous vehicle owners. The second version of autonomy is by the public with regards to pedestrian safety on the roads. Each of the parties feels that their approach is the correct approach to be embraced.
Is somebody’s choice being respected?
The policymakers have only favored the complaints raised by the autonomous vehicle owners. They have respected the decision that regardless the situation facing the vehicle; the vehicle should stay on its lane at all times. Besides, the systems of the autonomous vehicles should be revamped to ensure that the automation is prompt. Thus, detection of hazards is easy. On the contrary, the views of the public regarding pedestrian safety are not considered. The public feels that pedestrian safety should be a priority even if the passengers in the autonomous vehicles suffer. The approach by the policy makers is a self-approach which leaves a lot to be desired with regards to pedestrian safety in the transport industry.
Does one side representative represent harm?
The one-sided approach by the policy makers means more harm for the pedestrians. In fact, the number of pedestrian deaths of the road will be on the increase since the designed policy by the policy makers favors the autonomous vehicles only. Therefore, the occurrence of any accidents will be justified by the existing policy even if the accident could be avoided by way of reasoning. This is a morally defensible approach by the autonomous vehicle owners for causing accidents.
Solutions to the Crisis Above
The first solution to the crisis above is a re-structuring of the policy to include the safety concerns of the pedestrians. The concerns do not have to bear the specific recommendations by the public but be designed in such a way that pedestrian safety is achieved. The autonomous vehicle owners association should also broach viable policies which can help prevent accidents even by way of reasoning instead of over-reliance on the systems of these vehicles. The second solution is to ensure that the roads are designed in such a way that the pedestrians have their own pathway which is secluded from the vehicle pathway. This way, the occurrence of accidents will be reduced greatly.
Conclusion
From the discussion above, it is evident that the accidents caused by autonomous vehicles can be reduced greatly by application of the aforementioned suggestions.
Bibliography
Society for Risk Analysis. "To Crash or Swerve? Study Reveals Which Actions Taken by self-Driving Cars are Morally Defensible." Science Daily”. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/10/181009135828.html (accessed December 15, 2018).
