Abstract
In this paper, we explore and describe what is needed to allow connected and automated vehicles (CAVs) to break traffic rules in order to minimise road safety risk and to operate with appropriate transparency (according to recommendation 4 in Bonnefon et al., European Commission, 2020). Reviewing current traffic rules with particular reference to two driving situations (speeding and mounting the pavement), we illustrate why current traffic rules are not suitable for CAVs and why making new traffic rules specifically for CAVs would be inappropriate. In defining an alternative approach to achieving safe CAV driving behaviours, we describe the use of ethical goal functions as part of hybrid AI systems, suggesting that functions should be defined by governmental bodies with input from citizens and stakeholders. Ethical goal functions for CAVs would enable developers to optimise driving behaviours for safety under conditions of uncertainty whilst allowing for differentiation of products according to brand values. Such functions can differ between regions according to preferences for safety behaviours within that region and can be updated over time, responding to continual socio-technological feedback loops. We conclude that defining ethical goal functions is an urgent and necessary step from governmental bodies to enable the safe and transparent operation of CAVs and accelerate the reduction in road casualties they promise to achieve.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
Submissions used from the Law Commission consultation on automated vehicles are publicly accessible (see references). Additional materials from interviews and correspondence with industry experts are not available due to commercial sensitivity.
Code availability
Not applicable.
Notes
Operational design domain is the operating conditions under which a given driving automation system or feature thereof is specifically designed to function (SAE, 2018).
Bonnefon et al. (2020) defined CAVs as vehicles that are both connected and automated and display one of the five levels of automation according to SAE International’s J3016 standard, combined with the capacity to receive and/or send wireless information to improve the vehicle’s automated capabilities and enhance its contextual awareness.
In accordance with Russell & Norvig (2009), we define AI as rational agents that use data and computation to determine actions that achieve the best expected outcome.
By ‘traditional’, we mean approaches based on deep learning to determine optimal outcomes.
Respondents included vehicle manufacturers, CAV developers, industry bodies, national and sub-national transport organisations, charities, technology companies, police forces, law firms and private individuals (Law Commission, 2019).
Term used in Moral Theory.
References
Aliman, N. M. (2020). Hybrid cognitive-affective strategies for AI safety. PhD dissertation, Utrecht University, 2020. Retrieved April 2021 from: https://doi.org/10.33540/203
Aliman, N. M., & Kester, L. (2019). Extending socio-technological reality for ethics in artificial intelligent systems. In: 2019 IEEE international conference on artificial intelligence and virtual reality (AIVR) (pp. 275–282).
Aliman, N.M., Kester, L., & Werkhoven, P., (2019). XR for augmented utilitarianism. In: 2019 IEEE international conference on artificial intelligence and virtual reality (AIVR) (pp. 283–285).
Aliman, N. M., Kester, L., Werkhoven, P., & Yampolskiy, R. (2019). Orthogonality-based disentanglement of responsibilities for ethical intelligent systems. In: International conference on artificial general intelligence (pp. 22–31). Springer.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2021) Criminal Courts, Australia. Retrieved June 2021 from: https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/crime-and-justice/criminal-courts-australia/latest-release
Bonnefon, J.-F., Černý, D., Danaher, J., Devillier, N., Johansson, V., Kovacikova, T., Martens, M., Mladenovic, M. N., Palade, P., Reed, N., Santoni De Sio, F., Tsinorema, S., Wachter, S., & Zawieska, K. (2020). Ethics of connected and automated vehicles recommendations on road safety, privacy, fairness, explainability and responsibility. European Commission. https://doi.org/10.2777/035239
Carsten, O., & Martens, M. H. (2019). How can humans understand their automated cars? HMI principles, problems and solutions. Cognition, Technology & Work, 21(1), 3–20.
Contissa, G., Lagioia, F., & Sartor, G. (2017). The ethical knob: Ethically-customisable automated vehicles and the law. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 25(3), 365–378.
Cummings, M. L., & Ryan, J. C. (2014). Shared authority concerns in automated driving applications. Retrieved April 2021 from: https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/86937
De Freitas, J., Censi, A., Smith, B. W., Di Lillo, L., Anthony, S. E., & Frazzoli, E. (2021). From driverless dilemmas to more practical commonsense tests for automated vehicles. In: Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, 118(11).
Department for Transport (2020). SPE0112: Vehicle speed compliance in Great Britain. Retrieved February 2021 from: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/vehicle-speed-compliance-statistics-data-tables-spe
Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (2015). The highway code. TSO, ISBN: 9780115533426.
Dutch Safety Board (2019). Who is in control? Road safety and automation in road traffic. Retrieved April 2021 from: https://www.onderzoeksraad.nl/en/page/4729/who-is-in-control-road-safety-and-automation-in-road-traffic
Eckersley, P. (2018). Impossibility and uncertainty theorems in AI value alignment (or why your AGI should not have a utility function). Technical report, Partnership on AI & EFF. arXiv preprintarXiv:1901.00064
Elvik, R., Vadeby, A., Hels, T., & van Schagen, I. (2019). Updated estimates of the relationship between speed and road safety at the aggregate and individual levels. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 123, 114–122.
European commission, proposal of the european parliament and of the council—Laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (artificial intelligence act) and amending certain union acts. 21 April 2021. Retrieved June 2021 from: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:e0649735-a372-11eb-9585-01aa75ed71a1.0001.02/DOC_1&format=PDF
European Parliament, European Parliament resolution of 20 October 2020 with recommendations to the commission on a civil liability regime for artificial intelligence (2020/2014(INL)). 20 October 2020. Retrieved 6 July 2021 from: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2020-0276_EN.html#title1
Fagnant, D. J., & Kockelman, K. (2015). Preparing a nation for autonomous vehicles: Opportunities, barriers and policy recommendations. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 77, 167–181.
Goodall, N. (2021). Comparison of automated vehicle struck-from-behind crash rates with national rates using naturalistic data. Accident Analysis and Prevention. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2021.106056
Kyriakidis, M., de Winter, J. C., Stanton, N., Bellet, T., van Arem, B., Brookhuis, K., Martens, M. H., Bengler, K., Andersson, J., Merat, N., & Reed, N. (2019). A human factors perspective on automated driving. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 20(3), 223–249.
Law Commission (2018). Automated vehicles: A joint preliminary consultation paper. Retrieved February 2021 from: https://s3-eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/lawcom-prod-storage-11jsxou24uy7q/uploads/2018/11/6.5066_LC_AV-Consultation-Paper-5-November_061118_WEB-1.pdf
Law Commission (2019). Responses to the automated vehicles consultation 2018–19. Retrieved February 2021 from: https://www.lawcom.gov.uk/draft-responses-to-the-automated-vehicles-consultation-2018-19/
Legifrance (2021). Code de la route. Retrieved April 2021 from: https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/id/LEGITEXT000006074228/
Lu, Z., Happee, R., Cabrall, C., Kyriakidis, M., & de Winter, J. (2016). Human factors of transitions in automated driving: A general framework and literature survey. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 43, 183–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2016.10.007
Marcus, G. (2020). The next decade in AI: four steps towards robust artificial intelligence. arXiv preprint. arXiv:2002.06177
Martens, M. H., & van den Beukel, A. P. (2013). The road to automated driving: Dual mode and human factors considerations. In: 16th international IEEE conference on intelligent transportation systems (ITSC 2013) (pp. 2262–2267). IEEE.
Morando, M. M., Truong, L. T., & Vu, H. L. (2017). Investigating safety impacts of autonomous vehicles using traffic micro-simulation. In: Australasian transport research forum (pp. 1–6).
NHTSA (2017). Office of Defects Investigation PE 16–007. Retrieved April 2021 from: https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/inv/2016/INCLA-PE16007-7876.pdf
NTSB (2018). National transportation safety board preliminary report highway: HWY18MH010. Retrieved April 2021 from: https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Pages/HWY18MH010-prelim.aspx
NTSB (2019). Collision between vehicle controlled by developmental automated driving system and Pedestrian Tempe, Arizona March 18, 2018. Accident Report NTSB/HAR-19/03 PB2019–101402. Retrieved April 2021 from: https://data.ntsb.gov/Docket/Document/docBLOB?ID=40479021&FileExtension=.PDF&FileName=NTSB%20-%20Adopted%20Board%20Report%20HAR-19%2F03-Master.PDF
Prakken, H. (2017). On the problem of making autonomous vehicles conform to traffic law. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 25(3), 341–363.
Quimby, A. R., House, C., & Ride, N. M. (2005). Comparing UK and European drivers on speed and speeding issues: some results from SARTRE 3 survey. In: Behavioural research in road safety: Fifteenth seminar. London: Department for Transport (pp. 49–67).
Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. Retrieved February 2021 from: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/27
Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. Retrieved April 2021 from: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/53/contents
Road Traffic Act 1988. Retrieved March 2021 from: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/contents
Russell, S., & Norvig, P. (2009). Artificial intelligence: A modern approach. Prentice Hall.
Rvv (1990) Traffic rules and traffic signs regulations. Retrieved April 2021 from: https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0004825/2021-01-01
SAE (2018) J3016 Taxonomy and definitions for terms related to driving automation systems for on-road motor vehicles. Retrieved February 2021 from https://doi.org/10.4271/J3016_201806
Scanlon, J.M., Kusano, K.D., Daniel, T., Alderson, C., Ogle, A., Victor, T. (2021). Waymo simulated driving behavior in reconstructed fatal crashes within an autonomous vehicle operating domain. Waymo LLC. Retrieved March 2021 from: https://storage.googleapis.com/waymo-uploads/files/documents/Waymo-Simulated-Driving-Behavior-in-Reconstructed-Collisions.pdf
UN (1949). Geneva convention on road traffic. United Nations. Retrieved April 2021 from: https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetailsV.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XI-B-1&chapter=11&Temp=mtdsg5&clang=_en
UN (1968). Vienna convention on road traffic. United Nations. Retrieved April 2021 from: https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetailsIII.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XI-B-19&chapter=11
UN (2016). Report of the sixty-eighth session of the working party on road traffic safety. United National Economic and Social Council. Retrieved June 2021 from https://unece.org/DAM/trans/doc/2014/wp1/ECE-TRANS-WP1-145e.pdf
Wernaart, B. (2021). Developing a roadmap for the moral programming of smart technology. Technology in Society, 64, 101466. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101466
WVW (1994) Road Traffic Act. Retrieved April 2021 from: https://www.hylaw.eu/database/national-legislation/the-netherlands/wegenverkeerswet-1994-road-traffic-act-912
Zhang, B., de Winter, J., Varotto, S., Happee, R., & Martens, M. (2019). Determinants of take-over time from automated driving: A meta-analysis of 129 studies. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 64, 285–307.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Dr. Nadisha-Marie Aliman for her helpful advice on various technical issues discussed in this paper and the individual academic and industry experts who engaged with our questions on CAV rule compliance, representatives from MIT, RWTH Aachen University and the Metropolitan Police for their insights in support of this paper and all people in our network that provided input to this paper with their ideas and opinions around behaviour of CAVs in case of breaking traffic rules.
Funding
No funding was received to assist with the preparation of this manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors contributed to the drafting of the manuscript. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Reed, N., Leiman, T., Palade, P. et al. Ethics of automated vehicles: breaking traffic rules for road safety. Ethics Inf Technol 23, 777–789 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-021-09614-x
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-021-09614-x