Reading 11: The world of autonomous vehicles where I can (safely) eat breakfast on the way to work
I worked at Ford this past summer, and the impression I got from that experience was that everyone believed AV was both obviously beneficial and an inevitable technological advancement. I talked about this occasionally throughout the summer to my roommate, who was working specifically in a division of the company that created semi-autonomous features to be put in future models. She spoke a lot about the physics and algorithms behind their features, along with certain user experience studies that had determined that the general public was more accepting of these semi-autonomous features than they initially thought. It was clear that her team had even had discussions about the economic and social impacts that their products might have on society. However, the topic of safety never came up, like it was always assumed that any autonomous features would be automatically safer than human drivers and that was the only confirmation they needed that they would benefit society.
It is interesting in the case of self-driving cars to think about who should take responsibility for accidents. I think the obvious answer is the company who developed the software powering the decisions. Perhaps many high fines would be sufficient for companies to rethink their algorithms (if the fact that they are putting lives at risk is not enough.) However, similar to when we were discussing corporate personhood, it is difficult to punish companies and have it have the same effect as individuals. I don’t think that this process of a company taking risks and gradually getting passengers to trust them is that different from when other forms of transportation technology were being created, such as airplanes. If people think that the risk of being in an AV is worth the benefit they will choose them. If people think the risk of being struck by transportation vehicles in the road is worth being a pedestrian, they will walk. If there’s enough push back from either, AVs will fail.
When I was Ford I heard the word “Mobility” at least once a day. Ford like to call itself a mobility company rather than just a car company, and always talks about it’s mission: “Freedom of Mobility.” I really believe that AV will be another step forward in providing people this freedom to move and travel as they choose. It will allow people to move as they want without putting their life on hold as much for the duration of the traveling, along with bringing the cost of things like renting cars down significantly. My roommate said that when she met with an executive at Ford this summer he discussed his vision of the world where AVs are the norm. He said that people who have an emotional attachment and the financial ability will own cars (part of the reason Ford is deciding to stop making sedans is because there is less of a reason to own a sedan, with little emotional connections, in such a world) and everyone will use Uber-like driverless services (whose prices will presumably be extremely lower without human labor.) I imagine this will decrease if not the number of cars on the road, at least the number of cars parked significantly, along with making trips that can only be made by car much more attainable to people.
Perhaps working at Ford has skewed my opinions, but I would for sure want to own or at least use AVs. While I’m not opposed to commutes, I would like to be doing something during my commute if possible. I also believe that despite all these moral dilemmas that the articles mentioned, AVs will be significantly safer than human drivers and will create a safer world for pedestrians and passengers both.
