Professional Ethics in relation to Autonomous Vehicles (Case Study Sample)

Professional Ethics: A case study Executive summary Autonomous vehicles have been tipped to revolutionise road transport for a while now, with carmakers working towards their enhancement. However, there have been doubts and challenges to overcome since the implementation of an autonomous driving environment requires highly advanced automotive technology. Human behaviour, ethics, traffic management policies, liabilities, and other factors seem to impede the widespread use of self-driving-cars technology. However, researchers and policymakers have been torn between the legal and ethical positions in terms of safety measures. On what level should the autonomous vehicle be autonomous? Is giving machines without willpower autonomous control a mistake or an advantage? Most of these queries come in the form of ideas that liability concerns may inhibit the use of autonomous vehicle technology access. Most of the purported notions have narrowed the scope down into what has been regarded as a “trolley problem” (Roff, 2019). Such concerns are still important and legitimate, yet, they can be addressed without slowing down access to the benefits of AV for the consumers (Villasenor, 2018). This paper delves into possible ways in which the autonomous landscape could be a viable and safe space for both the occupants and road users of self-driving cars. Requirements for fully automated vehicles (AV) The question of the extent to which a computer should control a human-occupied vehicle is often a bone of contention. As a result, if vehicles have to be fully automated, then the following recommendations on laws, liabilities, and regulations need to be considered. A vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communication protocol in all newly manufactured vehicles be enacted The prospect of wireless technology is vital in the efficiency and safety of road transport and communications, especially among autonomous vehicles. Automation must not only be used within a vehicle but also among multiple vehicles for them to share information and help avoid collisions and other accidents (Zadobrischi & Dimian, 2021). The V2V technology could be significant in ensuring vehicle adaptation to the road, with familiarity through constant sending and receiving of information, in liaison with another vehicle to the road (V2R) and road to vehicle (R2V) systems. The vehicles should also be fitted with alert systems that recognises and distinguishes emergencies such as crashed cars as they cannot relay information in their crashed state to potential recipients. V2V communication ensures the channelling of information among road users without having to go through a road unit, which should give advanced warning to oncoming traffic, which in turn could be crucial, especially on single lane high-speed highways (Zadobrischi & Dimian, 2021). Reviewing of liability laws Liability laws offer a scaffold for remedies against a defect (or misrepresentation) about a product that causes harm to a person or property, a process that requires tort and contracts laws. Tort law could be viewed in terms of negligence on the part of manufacturers with respect to AVs while contract laws could come as the commercial nature of product marketing and sales. The lack of warnings could be a distinct legal issue of manufacturer post-sale responsibility. Failure to inform an AV user about a particular issue could further call for punitive action (Villasenor, 2018). Liability insurance can also be a complicated concern about AV manufacture. In case of a non-AV accident, the driver may impute the accident to a manufacturer’s defect. If the driver is sued by a victim in the accident, the driver’s insurer will then implead the manufacturer. How, then, in the case of AVs, should insurance providers incentivize the use of certain autonomous technologies required through regulations (such as V2V communications)? Regulations focus on the extent to which a human driver is responsible for an accident. In a scenario where AV cars are more efficient than the best unimpaired human driver, will there be then a regulation against the use of non-AVs? Those mandated on regulations for AVs should focus on general regulatory principles and legal frameworks intended for Artificial intelligence (AI) and conduct a human right anticipatory impact assessment or potential issues. As a result of liability and regulatory issues, just like any other product roll-out, experts tend to over-dwell on the negatives while giving a blind eye to the positives. It is more prudent that the pros of having self-driving cars on the road are more. Hence, the following circumstances should guide my permission: 1. Pre-emptive liability issue resolution should not be a precondition to the commercial rollout of AVs. New products always come about with liability concerns, which could not be different to AV’s commercial adaptation. It would be best for legal institutions to handle various concerns as they come. 2. Product liability laws have always been considered highly adaptable to nouveau technologies. Liability laws have been considered quite capable of addressing various concerns and that does not change with the rollout of autonomous vehicles. 3. Federal attention to safety standards for AVs will be required, and be accompanied by liability implications. Just as the government has authority over non-autonomous vehicle regulation in regards to “minimum safety performance requirements”, AVs should not be any different. As time goes by, the establishment of consistent safety regulations should be the order, and the government should provide federal level provisions which courts would adopt in liability cases. How accidents would be investigated Autonomous vehicle accidents could be investigated by checking out the data in the vehicle’s communication systems, particularly focusing on those intended for the braking function and lane drifting automation system. The investigations would also follow up the cascade of design decisions that do not process and respond to object presence (such as pedestrians, buildings, or other vehicles, where intercommunication between the LIDAR and radar units and the object should be ‘to optimum industry standards’ (Harris, 2019). Also, in the case of level 4 and 5 autonomous vehicles, does its manufacturer or retailer have a stand-alone operational safety division, standardized operations procedure, or safety guiding document? Other required information during investigation includes the driving behaviour before an accident, motion states of the accident participants, visual obstacles present in the accident, and the surrounding traffic environment before the accident (Yuan et al., 2021). Who will be responsible for the accidents? AV accidents could be associated with a system failure or software glitch. Some designs do not have a dashboard or require a person physically placed behind the steering wheel. In such circumstances, the manufacturer will be liable. However, if the car can be manually operable and an accident was caused as a result of negligence in operation (such as driving under the influence), the blame lies on the human driver. Ethical decisions that would guide the recommendation process The AVs are machines that are programmed with complex forced-choice algorithms that allow them to make ethic-driven decisions such as if it is better to hit two pedestrians or two cyclists. However, the ethical decisions involved could be problematic. The government should regulate and standardize the decision-making criteria in the AV algorithm and probably set a minimum moral standard. There should be a requirement to optimize the manufacturer’s freedom to innovate and desire for profit against the safety concerns of the general public. From the socio-economic point of view, the introduction of AVs results in the reduction of road traffic accidents, which in turn, should lead to reduced insurance premiums for AV owners. Yet, new technology is only affordable to the wealthiest in the society, hence, those in the lower social strata could more likely drive cars that are less safe, relatively increasing their insurance premiums (Maurer et al., 2020). The ethical decisions should be translated into regulations that would be accepted internationally. The philosophical deba...