Abstract
In the present article we exploit the logical notions of correctness and completeness to provide an analysis of some fundamental problems that can be encountered by a software developer when transforming norms for traffic circulation into programming instructions. Relying on this analysis, we then introduce a question and answer procedure that can be helpful, in case of an accident, to clarify which components of an existing framework should be revised and to what extent software developers can be held responsible.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The text of The Italian Highway Code (Codice della Strada) is available online at https://www.normattiva.it/uri-res/N2Ls?urn:nir:stato:legge:1992;495!vig=.
Of course, there are very important ethical principles that cannot be expected to take priority in the case of a conflict with traffic conventions, and hence cannot be included in the class of fundamental principles in this particular context. For instance, the principle of minimizing emissions of pollutant gas is extremely important for environmental issues, but it can never force one to contravene traffic conventions. It should rather be observed as far as possible in addition to all traffic conventions.
In addition to our comments on Definitions 1 and 2, a. possible way of addressing this issue is, in our opinion, thinking of frameworks for AVs as analogous to frameworks designed for the circulation of some automated means of public transportation. For instance, consider the case of automated trains: they have a limited capability of spatial motion due to the presence of tracks and, for this reason, their behaviour can be more easily foreseen. Similarly, early frameworks for AVs could allow these vehicles to perform a limited amount of spatial moves and to have limited forms of interactions among them, all of which would be easy to foresee and well regimented by the available software. This would also require keeping AVs separated from other vehicles and human agents (cyclists, pedestrians, etc.) in such early stages, in order to avoid any unforeseen event due to the other categories of road users.
We note here already that there is no consensus on how to define these notions precisely; nevertheless, our points will be neutral in the way that they will carry over to various proposals in the literature.
References
Bhargava, V., & Kim, T.W. (2017). Autonomous vehicles and moral uncertainty. In: P. Lin, K. Abney, & R. Jenkins (Eds.), Robot ethics 2.0. From autonomous cars to artificial intelligence (pp. 5–19). Oxford University Press.
Cane, P. (2002). Responsibility in law and morality. Hart Publishing.
Coeckelbergh, M. (2016). Responsibility and the moral phenomenonology of using self-driving cars. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 30(8), 748–757.
Douma, F., & Palodichuk, S. A. (2012). Criminal liability issues created by autonomous vehicles. Santa Clara Law Review, 52(4), 1157–1169.
Duff, A. (2009). Legal and moral responsibility. Philosophy Compass, 4(6), 978–986.
Eliot, L. (2019). Key to driverless cars, Operational Design Domains (ODD), here’s what they are, woes too. Medium, April 19.
Epting, S. (2019). Automated vehicles and transportation justice. Philosophy & Technology, 32(3), 389–403.
Friedrich, B. (2016). The effect of autonomous vehicles on traffic. In M. Maurer, J. C. Gerdes, B. Lenz, & H. Winner (Eds.), Autonomous driving (pp. 317–334). Springer.
Goodall, N.J. (2014). Machine ethics and automated vehicles. In: G. Meyer, & S. Beiker (Eds.), Road vehicle automation (pp. 93–102). Springer.
Grunwald, A. (2016). Societal risk constellations for autonomous driving. Analysis, historical context and assessment. In M. Maurer, J. C. Gerdes, B. Lenz, & H. Winner (Eds.), Autonomous driving (pp. 641–663). Springer.
Gurney, J. (2017). Applying a reasonable driver standard to accidents caused by autonomous vehicles. In: P. Lin, K. Abney, & R. Jenkins (Eds.), Robot ethics 2.0 (pp. 51–65). Oxford University Press.
Hevelke, A., & Nida-Rümelin, J. (2015). Responsibility for crashes of autonomous vehicles: An ethical analysis. Science and Engineering Ethics, 21(3), 619–630.
Isaacs, T. (2011). Moral responsibility in collective contexts. Oxford University Press.
Lin, P. (2013). The ethics of saving lives with autonomous cars are far murkier than you think. Wired. July 30.
Lin, P. (2014). The robot car of tomorrow may just be programmed to hit you. Wired. May 6.
Lin, P. (2016). Why ethics matters for autonomous cars. In M. Maurer, J. C. Gerdes, B. Lenz, & H. Winner (Eds.), Autonomous driving (pp. 69–85). Springer.
Loh, W., & Loh, J. (2017). Autonomy and responsibility in hybrid systems. In: P. Lin, K. Abney, & R. Jenkins (Eds.), Robot ethics 2.0 (pp. 35–50). Oxford University Press.
Marchant, G. E., & Lindor, R. A. (2012). The coming collision between autonomous vehicles and the liability system. Santa Clara Law Review, 52(4), 1321–1340.
McFarland, M. (2015). Google’s chief of self-driving cars downplays ‘the trolley problem’. The Washington Post, December 1.
Narveson, J. (2002). Collective responsibility. The Journal of Ethics, 6(2), 179–198.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (2013). Preliminary Statement of Policy concerning Automated Vehicles. 12–14 May.
Nyholm, S. (2018a). The ethics of crashes with self-driving cars: a roadmap, I. Philosophy Compass, e12507.
Nyholm, S. (2018). The ethics of crashes with self-driving cars: a roadmap. II. Philosophy Compass, e12506
Nyholm, S. (2018). Attributing agency to automated systems: Reflections on human-robot collaborations and responsibility loci. Science and Engineering Ethics, 24, 1201–1219.
Siddiqui, F. (2019). What self-driving cars can’t recognize may be a matter of life and death. The Washington Post, November 11.
Subosits, J. K., & Gerdes, J. C. (2019). From the racetrack to the road: Real-time trajectory replanning for autonomous driving. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles, 4(2), 309–320.
Taylor, M. (2016). Self-driving Mercedes-Benzes will prioritize occupant safety over pedestrians. Car and Driver, October 7.
Thornton, S.M. (2018). Autonomous vehicle speed control for safe navigation of occluded pedestrian crosswalk. Available at: arxiv:1802.06314
White, T.N., & Baum, S.D. (2017). Liability for present and future robotics technology. In: Lin, P., Abney, K., & Jenkins R. (eds.), Robot ethics 2.0 (pp. 66–79). Oxford University Press.
Acknowledgements
Daniela Glavaničová was supported by the Slovak Research and Development Agency under the contract no. APVV-170057 and VEGA 1/0197/20. Matteo Pascucci was supported by the Štefan Schwarz Fund for the project “A fine-grained analysis of Hohfeldian concepts” (2020-2022) and by the VEGA Grant No. 2/0117/19. The authors thank their colleagues at the Department of Analytic Philosophy of the Slovak Academy of Sciences for useful comments on this work.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
The contents of the article are the result of a joint research work of the two authors.
Corresponding author
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
Glavaničová, D., Pascucci, M. Correctness and Completeness of Programming Instructions for Traffic Circulation. Sci Eng Ethics 27, 72 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-021-00350-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-021-00350-5