Main content
Course: Wireless Philosophy > Unit 5
Lesson 8: Will autonomous vehicles live up to their promise?Will autonomous vehicles live up to their promise?
In this Wireless Philosophy video, Ryan Jenkins (professor of Philosophy at Cal Poly) discusses some of the ethical considerations regarding the use of autonomous vehicles (AVs), otherwise known as self-driving cars. Who will benefit, and who will be harmed by AVs? Are there ways to enjoy the benefits of AVs fairly, without taking on the burdens they may cause or pushing them onto others who are less fortunate? Created by Gaurav Vazirani.
Video transcript
Hi, I’m Ryan Jenkins, a philosophy professor at
Cal Poly in San Luis Obispo. Think of how your world would change if you didn’t have to drive your car if your car, that is, could drive itself. So-called “autonomous vehicles” or “AVs” are one of the most hotly
anticipated emerging technologies. AVs use a collection of sensors like cameras and radar to "understand"
the world around them and plot a course through traffic to take occupants from A to B. Basically, they offload the task of
driving from a person to a computer. And AVs offer many benefits from the mundane to the monumental. But they also provide a clear lesson in how a new technology can
be a kind of mixed blessing. All technologies bring
benefits at least for some otherwise, they wouldn’t be adopted. But ethicists and policymakers have raised questions
about exactly <i>who</i> will benefit and who will be harmed
by autonomous vehicles. Let’s start with the most
important consideration given in favor of autonomous vehicles: the safety factor. Unlike human drivers, autonomous vehicles will
not become tired or distracted. They won’t text or drink while driving. And they won’t get road rage. This helps explain why they
will almost certainly save lives preventing at least some
of the 30,000 lives lost on the roads every
year in America alone. But who is most likely to see this benefit? Well,those that can
afford to buy AVs first: the rich. As science fiction writer
William Gibson said, the future may be here already, but it’s not evenly distributed. Beyond improvements in safety, AVs also have the potential
to improve the quality of life for those of us who
are vision impaired, hearing impared, or cognitively impaired for whom driving can
be daunting or impossible. Cars that can drive themselves could ferry us around without
the need for us to see or hear. But developing cars for the
vision or hearing impaired or those who are wheelchair bound is expensive and difficult This helps explain why
no major car companies produce wheelchair-accessible
vehicles today. Those modifications are
always added after the fact. So can we count on this benefit, if companies are just seeking to
maximize their profits from AVs? On another note, if cars can drive themselves,
and talk to each other, then they could follow each
other much more closely. In driver’s ed, we learn to leave a few seconds of space
between us and the car in front of us, but computers that can “see”
and “think” faster than humans don’t need nearly as much room,
maybe even just a few inches. This means fitting many
more cars onto the same road, easing traffic congestion. But while vehicles that can
communicate directly with each other might reduce traffic
congestion on highways, these same vehicles could actually
increase congestion within city limits. How could that happen? Well, much of the time cars are
sitting in parking lots or driveways, and even when they’re being driven, they’re usually just
carrying one or two people. That’s a lot of wasted potential If cars could drive themselves
and be summoned from across town, why not use this “dead time to run errands or serve as a
taxi for others who need rides? And why would I look for a parking
space when I can just have my car do a few laps around the block
while I run into a grocery store? Now, all of a sudden, our city streets are jammed
not just with people in cars but also with empty
cars driving in circles! And while cheap,
on-demand mobility is great it could also reduce support
for public transportation, which many rely on. What happens to people who don’t have a car and can’t afford an autonomous
taxi ride everywhere they need to go? Finally, the safety benefits
of autonomous vehicles might not be all they’re cracked up to be. Autonomous vehicles remove
the human driver from the equation. This is what allows them
to be safer in a lot of cases. But removing the human also removes a
source of “common sense” decision making. How many parents would be comfortable
sending their children to school in an autonomous vehicle? Or should I be worried that it might swerve out of the way to avoid
a plastic bag or a candy wrapper, thus crashing and injuring my child? And what happens when some
rambunctious teenagers play “chicken” with an autonomous vehicle, knowing it will always swerve to
avoid a crash, as has already happened? What we see is that as technologies
move through the “hype cycle”, some of the celebrations become muted, the benefits are murkier
than we thought, or fewer people will benefit, or people who are already poor
or disadvantaged will be left out, and new problems will be
created at the same time. What technology gives with one hand, it often takes away with the other. But, maybe there are ways to
enjoy the benefits of AVs fairly without taking on the burdens, or pushing these burdens onto
others who are less fortunate. What do you think?