No, Driverless Cars Won’t “Choose” to Kill You

Future Tense
The Citizen's Guide to the Future
May 14 2014 9:02 AM

No, Driverless Cars Won’t “Choose” to Kill You

461464747-range-rover-evoque-equipped-with-valeo-self-parking
A Range Rover Evoque equipped with Valeo self-parking technology backs into a parking spot during a driverless car demo.

Photo by ROBYN BECK/AFP/Getty Images

Though still in the testing phase, driverless cars are quickly moving from closed-off highways to bustling city streets. Seeing the inevitable adoption of the futuristic technology by our nation’s commuters, many states and jurisdictions across the country are proactively enacting regulations governing autonomous vehicles on public roads. But a recent discussion among technophiles goes way further into the future, asking whether or not driverless cars will “choose” to kill their occupants in the event of an accident.

Patrick Lin started the debate last week on Wired, questioning whether or not (hereto unspecified) crash-optimization algorithms designed to ensure passenger safety in the event of an emergency would cause driverless cars to intentionally hit larger vehicles better capable of absorbing an impact. Lin, an associate professor at California Polytechnic State University, is careful to acknowledge that his hypotheticals are merely a thought experiment intended to raise awareness of ethical issues surrounding autonomous vehicles. But then Popular Science and Gizmodo latched onto the concept, quickly allowing the discussion to devolve into one ridiculous question: Should a driverless car be authorized to kill you?

Arguments asking whether or not driverless cars should “choose” the least deadly collision (sacrificing the vehicle operator’s life to spare a school bus full of children, for example) are fun/terrifying to think about. It’s like someone asked Christopher Nolan to direct Speed 3: Driverless Doom. (Only one Google car can survive!)

Advertisement

But these arguments lose sight of reality in favor of drama. Washington, D.C., for example, already passed legislation deeming the operator of an autonomous vehicle to be the “driver” for all legal purposes, including traffic violations. The first models of driverless cars will be able to operate in either autonomous or manual modes, providing motorists with extra control during tricky situations. Simply alerting the motorist to a danger before switching to manual control will be enough to allay fears of an Audi’s Choice scenario.

And don’t forget: Autonomous technology is already out there on the roads. Many vehicles on the market today have automatic braking systems, which detect objects in front of the car and apply the brakes to avoid collisions. A family of five in an automatic-braking minivan may be relieved to avoid smashing into the trashcans in front of them, but decidedly less enthusiastic when they are subsequently rear-ended by the runaway garbage truck speeding behind them. Where is the panic?

The fact is, autonomous and semi-autonomous systems help make our roads safer. (A recent study of automatic braking systems found equipped vehicles 27 percent less likely to be involved in low speed crashes.) Driverless cars are no exception. In all likelihood, having a range of sensors capable of detecting any number of things a driver can’t even see will help stop accidents before they happen. Just as people will certainly continue to die in automobile accidents long after driverless cars become available to the public, autonomous systems developers will also continue to find ways to avoid these tragedies. And no, your car won’t “choose” to kill you. Here’s hoping it reroutes you to a hospital if you choke on your breakfast burrito, though. Drive on, driverless cars. Drive on.

Future Tense is a partnership of SlateNew America, and Arizona State University.

Tyler Lopez is a writer living in Washington, D.C. Follow him on Twitter.

TODAY IN SLATE

Culturebox

The Ebola Story

How our minds build narratives out of disaster.

The Budget Disaster That Completely Sabotaged the WHO’s Response to Ebola

PowerPoint Is the Worst, and Now It’s the Latest Way to Hack Into Your Computer

The Shooting Tragedies That Forged Canada’s Gun Politics

A Highly Unscientific Ranking of Crazy-Old German Beers

Education

Welcome to 13th Grade!

Some high schools are offering a fifth year. That’s a great idea.

Culturebox

The Actual World

“Mount Thoreau” and the naming of things in the wilderness.

Want Kids to Delay Sex? Let Planned Parenthood Teach Them Sex Ed.

Would You Trust Walmart to Provide Your Health Care? (You Should.)

  News & Politics
Politics
Oct. 22 2014 9:42 PM Landslide Landrieu Can the Louisiana Democrat use the powers of incumbency to save herself one more time?
  Business
Continuously Operating
Oct. 22 2014 2:38 PM Crack Open an Old One A highly unscientific evaluation of Germany’s oldest breweries.
  Life
Gentleman Scholar
Oct. 22 2014 5:54 PM May I Offer to Sharpen My Friends’ Knives? Or would that be rude?
  Double X
The XX Factor
Oct. 22 2014 4:27 PM Three Ways Your Text Messages Change After You Get Married
  Slate Plus
Tv Club
Oct. 22 2014 5:27 PM The Slate Walking Dead Podcast A spoiler-filled discussion of Episodes 1 and 2.
  Arts
Culturebox
Oct. 22 2014 11:54 PM The Actual World “Mount Thoreau” and the naming of things in the wilderness.
  Technology
Future Tense
Oct. 22 2014 5:33 PM One More Reason Not to Use PowerPoint: It’s The Gateway for a Serious Windows Vulnerability
  Health & Science
Wild Things
Oct. 22 2014 2:42 PM Orcas, Via Drone, for the First Time Ever
  Sports
Sports Nut
Oct. 20 2014 5:09 PM Keepaway, on Three. Ready—Break! On his record-breaking touchdown pass, Peyton Manning couldn’t even leave the celebration to chance.