The Pros And Cons Of Driverless Vehicles

ue the manufacturers and designers of

autonomous cars must be able to program software with a sense of morality, and

consumers must subsequently agree to such predetermined decisions. Lisa

Eadicicco explains, “With the basic technical hurdles out of the way, driverless car

experts now face a different set of problems -- namely, ethical issues. Among

the most pressing questions: What should a driverless car do if it faces a

choice between putting its passengers at risk or harming someone outside the

vehicle?” (Eadicicco). Driverless cars cannot merely function upon the

basis of machinery and technology, as these vehicles must make decisions from

an ethical perspective. Therefore, the creator of such a vehicle will need to

decide the “beliefs”

of the car’s morality.
As concluded in a survey from the University
of Toulouse, many individuals believe driverless vehicles should be automated
to both save the greatest number of lives and predominantly protect the driver
(being themselves) (Eadicicco). Unfortunately, both the driver and those
outside of a driverless vehicle cannot be protected in a dire circumstance.
Thus, the vehicle must have a predetermined action to take in a deadly
situation; such an action must be agreed upon by the consumer, the government,
and the car manufacturer. Furthermore, the consumers of driverless cars are not interested in a
vehicle which is programmed by legislation to save the maximum number of lives,
regardless of the welfare of those inside the vehicle (Eadicicco). If
the consumer does not agree with the predetermined decisions of driverless
vehicles, the autonomous car revolution may accordingly fall. According to
Smillie, “…when
participants were then asked whether the government should require driverless
cars to minimize pedestrian deaths at the expense of passengers, and if they
would buy a car programmed to do so, people liked the idea of autonomous cars
that would kill one pedestrian to save 10 others. They also liked the idea of
other motorists owning cars that would sacrifice passengers to protect
pedestrians. But they were less likely to want to own such a car themselves or
to support the government enforcing this kind of sacrifice. Overall, the
respondents were nearly three times less likely to buy a car designed to let
the occupants die to spare pedestrians than one with no such programming”
(Smillie). Such a decision regarding life at the expense of others is
truly a paradox- can one ever decide “who to kill” upon the basis of ethics?
Such a question must be thoughtfully addressed- not just by the government, but
by all individuals.

Additionally, critics of driverless cars believe such
autonomous technologies, being governed by software, will face the threatening
possibility of being hacked. As stated in a Federal
report, “CYBER security breaches and software bugs will feature as new causes
of crashes with the widespread introduction of driverless cars” (Masanauskas). Governments
and/or insurance agencies will need to adapt to such a complex issue, as the
fault of a crash may no longer be in the hands of the driver. Malicious
“hackers” may hold a vehicle hostage until a sum of currency is paid, just as
information has been ransomed within computers. Until autonomous software is no
longer susceptible to hackers, driverless cars cannot be completely safe.

Even though many believe driverless cars are both difficult

to implement and potentially dangerous, humans are the underlying cause of both

traffic-related incidents and fatalities; autonomous vehicles will operate

without the weaknesses of humanity, thus significantly increasing safety.

Smillie points out, “Crashes killed nearly 33,000 people in the United States and 1.25

million worldwide in 2013, and human error caused almost all of them. Cars that

move by algorithm can communicate directly with one another and don’t fall

asleep, get distracted by text messages or drink too much.” The fact

that humans are being slaughtered annually within transportation is truly

barbarous, especially when the technology needed to prevent such atrocities

already exists; these technologies must be rapidly integrated into society. Any

potentially threatening circumstances associated with driverless cars are

easily overwhelmed by the numerous benefits and increased security. Similarly, autonomous technologies can

fluently function without facing distractions or interferences. According to Time

Magazine, “[Driverless cars are] superior drivers. These words may grate in

the
sunburned left ears of car-loving Americans. But the computer is simply a
better driver than a human. Better at keeping its eyes on other drivers; better
at maintaining a steady cruising speed and thereby maximizing fuel efficiency;
better at parsing GPS data, weather data, traffic data--any and all kinds of
data, really--and better at making rapid-fire adjustments. The computer doesn't
get distracted by a spouse, kids or the jerk who just made an illegal lane
change. It doesn't sneak a glimpse at Snapchat, or fumble with a leaky burrito,
or steer with its knees while playing air guitar. The computer couldn't blink
even if it wanted to. It never says yes to a fourth chardonnay, never convinces
itself that weed improves its driving. Asking directions is a computer's
favorite activity, and unless ordered to, the computer never falls asleep”
(Fitzpatrick). Regardless of their imperfections, driverless vehicles
are, and will remain, more efficient than human drivers. Humans must recognize
the beneficial outcomes of using driverless vehicles, not the negative. In
order to achieve such an astounding level of safety, autonomous
cars are composed of numerous safety features- including various sensors,
intelligent systems/algorithms, and artificial intelligence; these systems
allow such vehicles to prevent or react to dangerous circumstances (Dahevsky). With these increasingly advanced
technologies, driverless cars will be able to effectively and accurately react,
leading to an exponential increase in safety.