Driverless cars: To swerve, or not to swerve?

Picture the scene; It’s 2030, and a driverless car is taking its owner to work one sunny morning. Seemingly from nowhere – a bus pulls out of a junction in front of it. It’s a school bus. To the left of the vehicle pedestrians occupy the pavement, and there is a cyclist making his or her own way to the office for the day. To the right, a moving lane of traffic heading in the opposite direction.

The question is then simple to ask, but virtually impossible to answer- what on earth does our autonomous vehicle do? Where does it turn? Should it turn at all? Does it stop? If so, does it risk killing it’s own passengers?

The possible introduction of such vehicles to our roads as an everyday mode of transport will spark debate and conversation that could go on for years- and probably will.

The ethical dilemmas that someone, somewhere, somehow has to program these vehicles to make could cause uproar, as the algorithm to sacrifice some before others must surely at some point be incorporated into the vehicle’s system in the event of such an occurence. The cases of unavoidable damage and chaos may be rare- but they are there- creating a huge problem for companies looking to lead the driverless generation. After all, none of these companies want a high profile, costly court case questioning their morality. But surely someone has to be held accountable?

So if and when an accident occurs, who will be to blame? It’s probably fair to say that every single one of us believe- and accept- that humans make mistakes from time to time. But, would we accept the same from a robot? A robot that has been invested in heavily in terms of both labour and finance no less. The level of expectation on perfection would certainly be higher.

When an accident does occur, the question will always be asked “Would that have happened had a person been driving?”. Some will simply make their mind up with a statement rather than the question and bat for ‘team human’ with something along the lines of “A person wouldn’t have done that.”

So- the question remains, who’s to blame in an accident? Is it government for even letting these things on our roads? Is it the company for building a machine incapable of such complex decisions? Is it down to an individual programmer or developer for not getting the algorithm 100% perfect? Even if the vehicle makes the statistically least damaging decision- how do we justify it if it causes the loss of even one human life?

There’s no doubt that all autonomous vehicle manufacturers have these dilemmas before being able to truly master the driverless car and it’s implementation into our lives as a ‘norm’. The cases of unavoidable damage in situations with only negative outcomes is surely the biggest issue surrounding this technology.

Just for a second- put yourself in the position of having to implement the programme into a vehicle that makes the choice between hitting a small car potentially containing a family, or hitting a large truck that could sacrifice everyone in your own vehicle. How do you make that moral justification for your decision when you’re held accountable?

To swerve? Or not to swerve? They are the very real, very serious questions.