How many people could self-driving cars kill before we would no longer tolerate them?

This once-hypothetical question is now taking on greater urgency, particularly among policymakers in Washington. The promise of autonomous vehicles is that they will make our roads safer and more efficient, but no technology is without its shortcomings and unintended consequences – in this instance, potentially fatal consequences.

“What if we can build a car that’s 10 times as safe, which means 3,500 people die on the roads each year. Would we accept that?” asks John Hanson, a spokesman for the Toyota Research Institute, which is developing the automaker’s self-driving technology.

“A lot of people say, ‘If I could save one life it would be worth it.’ (In practice), though, we don’t think that would be acceptable,” Hanson said.

Members of Congress are beginning to consider legislation that enables the broader adoption of self-driving technology without compromising safety. At a House subcommittee hearing last week, for example, lawmakers and industry leaders alike grappled with the question of whether machines need only drive better than humans to win our trust.

More than 35,000 people were killed in car collisions in the United States in 2015, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The agency estimates that 94 percent of those wrecks were the result of human error and poor decision-making, including speeding and impaired driving.

Advertisement

Self-driving enthusiasts assert that the technology could make those deaths a misfortune of the past. But humans are not entirely rational when it comes to fear-based decision-making. It’s the reason people are afraid of shark attacks or plane crashes, when the odds of either event are exceptionally low.

Harvard University professor Calestous Juma draws a parallel between self-driving cars and home refrigerators, which gained popularity in U.S. households in the 1920s and 30s. Although scientists understood that cold storage could cut down on food-borne illnesses, reports of refrigeration equipment catching fire or leaking toxic gas made the public wary.

Americans eventually adopted the now-ubiquitous household appliance thanks in large part to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which advocated for the health benefits of refrigeration and educated against unfounded concerns about the technology’s safety, Juma writes in his book “Innovation and Its Enemies: Why People Resist New Technologies.”

People are also more inclined to forgive mistakes made by humans than machines, Gill Pratt, chief executive of the Toyota Research Institute, told lawmakers on Capitol Hill last week.

“The artificial intelligence systems on which autonomous vehicle technology will depend are presently and unavoidably imperfect,” Pratt told lawmakers at a House subcommittee hearing. “So, the question is, ‘how safe is safe enough’ for this technology to be deployed?”

The answer to questions about safety might come down to how much we trust self-driving cars, regardless of how many lives they can save, said Iyad Rahwan, an associate professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Media Lab who has studied the social dilemmas presented by autonomous vehicles.. For example, if autonomous vehicles save the lives of thousands of motorists but cause fatalities of cyclists and pedestrians to increase, the public’s trust in the technology is likely to erode.

“If they’re not comfortable with the trade-offs that cars are making, then we risk people losing faith in the system and perhaps not adopting the technology,” Rahwan said.


Only subscribers are eligible to post comments. Please subscribe or login first for digital access. Here’s why.

Use the form below to reset your password. When you've submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code.