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

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

Medical Examiner

Here’s Where We Stand With Ebola

Even experienced international disaster responders are shocked at how bad it’s gotten.

It’s Legal for Obama to Bomb Syria Because He Says It Is

Divestment Is Fine but Mostly Symbolic. There’s a Better Way for Universities to Fight Climate Change.

I Stand With Emma Watson on Women’s Rights

Even though I know I’m going to get flak for it.

It Is Very Stupid to Compare Hope Solo to Ray Rice

Building a Better Workplace

In Defense of HR

Startups and small businesses shouldn’t skip over a human resources department.

Why Are Lighter-Skinned Latinos and Asians More Likely to Vote Republican?

How Ted Cruz and Scott Brown Misunderstand What It Means to Be an American Citizen

  News & Politics
Politics
Sept. 23 2014 12:43 PM Occupy Wall Street How can Hillary Clinton be both a limousine liberal and a Saul Alinsky radical?
  Business
Moneybox
Sept. 23 2014 2:08 PM Home Depot’s Former Head of Security Had a Legacy of Sabotage
  Life
Outward
Sept. 23 2014 1:57 PM Would A Second Sarkozy Presidency End Marriage Equality in France?
  Double X
The XX Factor
Sept. 23 2014 2:32 PM Politico Asks: Why Is Gabby Giffords So “Ruthless” on Gun Control?
  Slate Plus
Slate Plus
Sept. 22 2014 1:52 PM Tell Us What You Think About Slate Plus Help us improve our new membership program.
  Arts
Brow Beat
Sept. 23 2014 2:31 PM 3 Simpsons Showrunners Reflect on New Fans and the “Classic Era” Myth
  Technology
Future Tense
Sept. 23 2014 1:50 PM Oh, the Futility! Frogs Try to Catch Worms Off of an iPhone Video.
  Health & Science
Science
Sept. 23 2014 1:38 PM Why Is Fall Red in America but Yellow in Europe? A possible explanation, 35 million years in the making.
  Sports
Sports Nut
Sept. 18 2014 11:42 AM Grandmaster Clash One of the most amazing feats in chess history just happened, and no one noticed.