CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 182Autonomous Vehicle Technology and SafetyEthics and Social Impacts of AIHuman-Automation Interaction and Safety

When human beings are like drunk robots: Driverless vehicles, ethics, and the future of transport

Open access
Sparrow, Robert, Howard, Mark·2017·Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies
DOI 10.1016/j.trc.2017.04.014
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

The paper argues that once fully autonomous vehicles are safer than human drivers with respect to risks to third parties, manual driving becomes morally impermissible and should be illegal, making human drivers the “moral equivalent of drunk robots.” It then explores how this ethical argument could generate legal and political pressure, and what policy choices are needed to realize the social and environmental benefits of driverless transport.

Key findings

  • As long as driverless vehicles are not safer than human drivers, it is unethical to sell them; once they are safer for third parties, it should be illegal to drive manually.
  • Human supervision of partially automated vehicles is likely to fail because ordinary people stop paying attention; regaining situational awareness may take more than 30 seconds and at minimum 2 seconds.
  • Two mechanisms may drive legal change: a tort test case against a human driver who takes control of a safer autonomous vehicle, and product-liability claims that manual control fails the risk-utility test once autonomy is safer.
  • Driverless vehicles may reduce private car ownership and demand, enable shared transport and “last mile” public transit, and reshape cities, but could also increase vehicle miles travelled—one cited estimate suggests up to a 14% increase for non-drivers, the elderly, and people with disabilities.

Methods

  • Normative ethical and policy analysis, developed through a dialectical argument about safety, moral permissibility, liability, and transport policy.
  • No empirical data collection or sample; the paper reviews and cites existing literature, engineering standards, legal cases, and policy documents.
  • Main analysis proceeds by identifying conditions under which driverless vehicles become ethically required, then tracing likely legal, insurance, industry, urban-planning, and public-transport implications.

Limitations

  • The authors state that their claims in section 4 about implications for the automobile and city are “of necessity, somewhat speculative.”
  • The authors acknowledge neglecting two subtleties for ease of exposition: the standard of performance required before promoting driverless vehicles is ethical, and the policies likely to emerge as driverless vehicles enter the market.
  • Evident from the text: the paper offers no original empirical evidence, relies on hypothetical scenarios and cited sources, and is explicitly agnostic about when driverless vehicles will become safer than human drivers.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.trc.2017.04.014

Cites

49 of 49 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

6 of 53 cited sources checked · 1 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Premisecitation
    § Introduction · p. 3

    Human beings quickly cease to pay attention to-or even to perceive-features of their environment that are not relevant to the tasks in which they are engaged.

    “Human beings quickly cease to pay attention to - or even to perceive - features of their environment that are not relevant to the tasks in which they are engaged”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Merat and Jamson, 2009 source

      The Conclusions (page not available) report slower anticipation of traffic events during automated driving and suggest that driver underload may have reduced awareness, although excessive trust in the system is another possible explanation. This supports a narrower point about attention in automated driving, not the general claim that people quickly stop attending to, or perceiving, environmental features irrelevant to their tasks. (LLM, conf=0.83)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Interpretationcitation
    § 4. Implications · p. 10

    The engineering team responsible for the software will be responsible-ethically if not legally-for all accidents in which those vehicles are involved.

    “That is, the engineering team responsible for the software will be responsible - ethically if not legally - for all of the accidents in which those vehicles are involved (Marchant and Lindor, 2012, p. 1326).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Marchant and Lindor, 2012

      The liability discussion (pp. 1328–1329) lists software engineers among parties who could be liable when an autonomous vehicle malfunctions and causes an accident. It does not assign engineers ethical responsibility for all accidents; p. 1329 says the vehicle manufacturer will usually be held liable, with engineer liability depending on a defective product. (LLM, conf=0.87)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Interpretationreasoning
    § Introduction · p. 4

    It is hard to rule out situations that require human decision-making within a fraction of a second once vehicles begin operating at high speeds.

    “it is hard to see how it would be possible to rule out situations that required human decision-making within a fraction of a second once vehicles began operating at high speeds”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Interpretationreasoning
    § Abstract · p. 1

    Systems that rely upon human supervision are likely to be dangerous when used by ordinary people in real-world driving conditions.

    “we suggest that systems that rely upon human supervision are likely to be dangerous when used by ordinary people in realworld driving conditions”
    • Also stated in: § Introduction · p. 2 · hedged
      “systems that rely upon human supervision are likely to be dangerous when used by ordinary people in real-world driving conditions”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Interpretationcitation
    § Introduction · p. 6

    By virtue of being less prone to accidents, driverless vehicles will be cheaper to insure.

    “By virtue of being less prone to accidents, driverless vehicles will be cheaper to insure”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Fagnant and Kockelman, 2015a, p. 174

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims. 22
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 40

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § Introduction · p. 3

    It may take more than 30 seconds-and will at minimum take 2 seconds-for a human being to regain situational awareness when required to do so.

    “It may take more than 30 seconds - and will at minimum take 2 seconds - for a human being to regain situational awareness when required to do so”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Lin, 2015, p. 72 source

      Section 4.1.1 says simulation experiments suggest drivers may need up to 40 seconds to regain situation awareness, supporting the possibility of more than 30 seconds. It does not establish a two-second minimum: its 1–2-second figure refers to reaction time in typical accident scenarios, not regaining situation awareness. No page number is provided in the supplied passage. (LLM, conf=0.88)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Kirkpatrick, 2015, p. 20 source
    • cites Radlmayr et al., 2014 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § Introduction · p. 6

    Hostility towards the imposition of risks on third parties may be perceived in the increasing support for laws regulating passive smoking.

    “Hostility towards the imposition of risks on third parties may also be perceived in the increasing support for laws regulating passive smoking”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Borland et al., 2006, p. 39 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation
    § Introduction · p. 6

    At some point, providing the option of manual control will fail the 'risk-utility test' and will be a violation of the standard of care that manufacturers owe consumers.

    “At some point, then, providing the option of manual control will fail the 'risk-utility test' and will be a violation of the standard of care that manufacturers owe consumers”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Marchant and Lindor, 2012, pp. 1323-1324

      The section on liability doctrine identifies the risk-utility test as the standard for assessing a design defect. But the paper does not say that offering manual control will eventually fail that test or violate a manufacturer's standard of care. Its discussion of an available override mechanism (p. 1327) instead concerns how fault for an accident might be allocated to the driver. (LLM, conf=0.78)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationcitation
    § 4. Implications · p. 10

    The trolley problem will inevitably arise once enough autonomous vehicles are on the roads, wherein the computer must decide who lives or dies when death is unavoidable.

    “This fact explains philosophers' fascination with the question as to how autonomous vehicles should resolve this 'trolley problem' that will inevitably arise once enough autonomous vehicles are on the roads, wherein the computer must decide who lives or dies in circumstances where the death of someone is unavoidable (Lin, 2015, p. 78).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Lin, 2015 source

      Section 4.2.4 says a trolley problem may occur with autonomous vehicles and illustrates a car choosing between actions that would kill different people. Section 4.3.2 says an accident may be unavoidable. Neither passage says such a dilemma will inevitably arise once enough vehicles are on the roads; the claim turns a possibility into a certainty. (LLM, conf=0.87)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given
    § Introduction · p. 4

    Once driverless vehicles become reliable enough, people are likely to rely on them completely.

    “once driverless vehicles become reliable enough, people are likely to rely on them completely”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Introduction · p. 5

    An autonomous vehicle does not need to be perfect-in the sense of capable of always avoiding collisions-in order to be ethical.

    “we do not believe that an autonomous vehicle needs to be 'perfect' - in the sense of capable of always avoiding collisions - in order to be ethical”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Introduction · p. 6

    Hire companies will prefer to rent out cars without steering wheels and these will be cheaper to rent than vehicles that allow the option of driving.

    “Hire companies will prefer to rent out cars without steering wheels and these will be cheaper to rent than vehicles that allow the option of driving.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given
    § Introduction · p. 5

    The story engineers tell about driverless vehicles-that they will reduce the road toll by virtue of being safer than human drivers-will eventually prove true.

    “we are inclined to believe that the story engineers tell about driverless vehicles - that they will reduce the road toll by virtue of being safer than human drivers - will eventually prove true”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Introduction · p. 5

    Governments will have strong ethical, public policy, and economic reasons to incentivise the uptake of driverless vehicles once their introduction would reduce the road toll.

    “Governments will have strong ethical, public policy, and economic reasons to incentivise the uptake of driverless vehicles once their introduction would reduce the road toll.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Introduction · p. 6

    In the long term, it is likely to generate legal and political pressure to make it illegal to take the wheel of a vehicle on a public road.

    “In the long-term, it is likely to generate legal and political pressure to make it illegal to take the wheel of a vehicle on a public road.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given
    § Introduction · p. 4

    Driverless vehicles will provide autonomy of movement to individuals with physical or cognitive constraints that currently exclude them from driving cars.

    “driverless vehicles will provide autonomy of movement to individuals with physical or cognitive constraints that currently exclude them from driving cars”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation
    § Introduction · p. 7

    Because a small percentage of drivers, who are young or reckless, are responsible for most road crash fatalities, driverless vehicles may be safer than the average driver without being safer than most drivers.

    “Because a small percentage of drivers, who are young or reckless, are responsible for most road crash fatalities (World Health Organization, 2015; Jonah, 1986), driverless vehicles may be safer than the average driver without being safer than most drivers.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites World Health Organization, 2015

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Jonah, 1986 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given
    § Introduction · p. 6

    A test case might arise in which a human being is in control of a vehicle that is also fitted with a state-of-the-art autonomous driving system when it causes someone other than the driver to be severely injured.

    “a test case might arise in which a human being is in control of a vehicle that is also fitted with a state-of-the-art autonomous driving system when it causes someone other than the driver to be severely injured”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Abstract · p. 1

    Once driverless vehicles are safer than human drivers when it comes to risks to third parties, human drivers will be the moral equivalent of drunk robots.

    “at that point human drivers will be the moral equivalent of drunk robots”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given
    § Abstract · p. 1

    Freeing people from the necessity of driving will transform the relationship people have with their cars, which will in turn open up new possibilities for the transport uses of the automobile.

    “Freeing people from the necessity of driving, though, will transform the relationship people have with their cars, which will in turn open up new possibilities for the transport uses of the automobile.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Abstract · p. 1

    Once driverless vehicles are safer than human drivers when it comes to risks to third parties, it should be illegal to drive them.

    “Once they are safer than human drivers when it comes to risks to 3 rd parties, then it should be illegal to drive them”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Introduction · p. 5

    If driverless vehicles would produce fewer road fatalities than human drivers driving at the same speeds, this establishes a strong public policy case for trying to shift to a fully driverless vehicle fleet as soon as possible.

    “If driverless vehicles would produce fewer road fatalities than would human drivers driving at the same speeds, this will establish a strong public policy case for trying to shift to a fully driverless vehicle fleet as soon as possible.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The relative safety of driverless and manual vehicles can be measured by road fatalities.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Introduction · p. 6

    Imposing this extra risk on third parties will be unethical: the human driver will be the moral equivalent of a drunk robot.

    “Moreover, imposing this extra risk on third parties will be unethical: the human driver will be the moral equivalent of a drunk robot.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Individuals have a right to risk their own lives, but their right to impose risks on nonconsenting third parties is much weaker.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Introduction · p. 6

    If it can be shown either that the autonomous driving system was much less likely to cause a crash than the human driver, in general, or in this particular situation, then the plaintiff's case is likely to be granted.

    “If it can be shown either that the autonomous driving system was much less likely to cause a crash than the human driver, in general, or in this particular situation, then the plaintiff's case is likely to be granted.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given
    § Introduction · p. 5

    There is no reason to believe that the driving record of even the best human being represents the upper limit of performance in the driving task.

    “There is no reason to believe that the driving record of even the best human being represents the upper limit of performance in this task.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Introduction · p. 7

    The answer as to the threshold of safety required for the introduction of driverless vehicles to be ethical turns on a larger question about the kind of ethical theory appropriate to public policy.

    “This means that our answer as to the threshold of safety required for the introduction of driverless vehicles to be ethical turns on a larger question about the kind of ethical theory appropriate to public policy.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation
    § 4. Implications · p. 10

    Private homes could convert garages into living or storage space, and governments and urban planners could aspire to higher housing densities.

    “As a consequence, private homes could convert garages into living or storage space, and governments and urban planners could therefore aspire to higher housing densities (Guerra, 2016, p. 215).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Guerra, 2016 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given
    § 4. Implications · p. 12

    If people are free to concentrate on other tasks while a driverless vehicle takes them to and from work, they may be willing to tolerate longer commutes.

    “If people are free to concentrate on other tasks while a driverless vehicle takes them to and from work, they may be willing to tolerate longer commutes.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given
    § 4. Implications · p. 12

    Every adult in what are currently single car households may choose to travel via driverless vehicles provided by transport services companies.

    “Every adult in what are currently single car households may choose to travel via driverless vehicles provided by transport services companies.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 4. Implications · p. 10

    Access to the general transport pool will be facilitated by companies selling contracts for 'transport services', which will also own fleets of autonomous vehicles themselves.

    “Access to this pool will, we believe, be facilitated by various companies selling contracts for 'transport services', which will also own fleets of autonomous vehicles themselves.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given
    § 4. Implications · p. 12

    People may order more consumables online once the items they order can be delivered by driverless cars rather than collected from stores or post offices.

    “People may order more consumables online once the items they order can be delivered by driverless cars rather than collected from stores or post offices.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given
    § 4. Implications · p. 10

    These road-use benefits will only be realised if governments and manufacturers can agree upon a set of standards that will allow vehicles built by different manufacturers to communicate safely and effectively.

    “Importantly, however, these benefits will only be realised if governments and manufacturers can agree upon a set of standards that will allow vehicles built by different manufacturers to communicate safely and effectively.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 4. Implications · p. 12

    Passengers setting off on a journey could use a phone app to request to be collected from their home or starting point and taken to the station.

    “Passengers setting off on a journey could use a phone app to request to be collected from their home or starting point and taken to the station.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationcitation
    § Introduction · p. 8

    Even if the gap is not closed quickly, there are strong reasons for thinking that when it comes to questions of public policy-and especially public health-governments should be inclined to reason as utilitarians.

    “Even if this turns out not to be the case, there are strong reasons for thinking that when it comes to questions of public policy - and especially questions related to public health - governments should be inclined to reason as utilitarians”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Goodin, 1995

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 4. Implications · p. 12

    Passengers arriving at a station could nominate a final destination within a certain distance.

    “Passengers arriving at a station could nominate a final destination within a certain distance.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given
    § 4. Implications · p. 10

    Such transport service contracts will guarantee consumers certain trip times over certain distances at particular times of the day.

    “Such contracts will guarantee consumers certain trip times over certain distances at particular times of the day.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 4. Implications · p. 10

    When a driver is behind the wheel, the car becomes an extension of them and driving is a means to exercise agency and express personality.

    “When a driver is behind the wheel of a car it becomes an extension of them and driving a means whereby they can exercise agency and express their personality (Gao et al., 2014, p. 1; Litman, 2015, p. 6).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Gao et al., 2014

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Litman, 2015

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 4. Implications · p. 10

    Once the car becomes a transport 'pod', the link between car ownership and driving pleasure will be broken, and people will pay much less attention to the vehicles in which they travel.

    “Once the car becomes a transport 'pod' we expect that this link will be broken; people will simply pay much less attention to the vehicles in which they travel.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § Introduction · p. 9

    Humans communicate intentions through bodily performances and can perceive when a driver may be distracted by a crying child, ringing phone, or friend in the back seat and take account of these factors.

    “We communicate our intentions through an array of bodily performances and we can perceive when a driver may be distracted by the crying child beside them, the ringing phone, or their friend in the back seat and take account of these factors (Joint Standing Committee on Road Safety, 2016, pp. 22, 39).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Joint Standing Committee on Road Safety, 2016

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given
    § 4. Implications · p. 10

    Depending on the contract, the vehicle might also collect and drop off other people travelling similar routes.

    “Depending on the contract, the vehicle might also collect and drop off other people travelling similar routes.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Introduction · p. 10

    It is clearly unlikely that manual driving will be made illegal as soon as driverless vehicles are safer than human drivers today, partly because driverless vehicles are currently tested alongside human drivers in large cities and because it would be difficult to establish road conditions with only autonomous vehicles.

    “This is clearly unlikely, not least because driverless vehicles are currently being tested in real-world driving conditions alongside human drivers in large cities already and also because it would be difficult to establish what road conditions would be like with only other autonomous vehicles on the road.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given
    § 5. Realising the benefits of a driverless world · p. 13

    These benefits are by no means guaranteed and the introduction of driverless vehicle technology might instead simply lead to an increase in the number of miles travelled in cars, even if the total fleet size is reduced.

    “We have also acknowledged that these benefits are by no means guaranteed and that the introduction of driverless vehicle technology might instead simply lead to an increase in the number of miles travelled in cars, even if the total fleet size is reduced.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Introduction · p. 8

    If drivers were adequately informed about the implications for their personal safety, presumably they would not wish to travel in a driverless vehicle.

    “If they were adequately informed about the implications for their personal safety, then, presumably they would not wish to travel in a driverless vehicle.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given
    § 5. Realising the benefits of a driverless world · p. 12

    The radical implications of the development of autonomous vehicle technology for the future of transport and the city are not yet widely understood.

    “However, the radical implications of the development of this technology for the future of transport and the city are not yet widely understood.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given
    § 5. Realising the benefits of a driverless world · p. 12

    Manufacturing a vehicle that allows a human being to drive will be in breach of the standard of care that manufacturers owe consumers.

    “while manufacturing a vehicle that allows a human being to drive will be in breach the standard of care that manufacturers owe consumers.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 4. Implications · p. 12

    A central booking system would group individuals who have similar routes and assign them to an autonomous minibus that would then collect them or drop them off within some specified period.

    “A central booking system would group individuals who have similar routes and assign them to an autonomous minibus that would then collect them or drop them off within some specified period.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given
    § Introduction · p. 8

    If it's possible to manufacture a driverless vehicle that is safer than the average human driver, then it will be possible to manufacture a driverless vehicle that is safer than even the best human driver.

    “If it's possible to manufacture a driverless vehicle that is safer than the average human driver then it will be possible to manufacture a driverless vehicle that is safer than even the best human driver.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given
    § 4. Implications · p. 10

    Signing up with such a transport service provider will offer most of the convenience of the motorcar at a fraction of the expense.

    “Signing up with such a provider will offer most of the convenience of the motorcar at a fraction of the expense.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Introduction · p. 8

    This consequentialist conclusion requires a willingness to trade-off the interests of different individuals of the sort that utilitarianism is notorious for and for which it has been roundly criticised.

    “this conclusion requires a willingness to trade-off the interests of different individuals of the sort that utilitarianism is notorious for and for which it has been roundly criticised”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Rawls, 1971, pp. 22-29

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Williams, 1973

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisereasoning
    § 4. Implications · p. 12

    Trains and light rail can carry high volumes of passengers but only between stations, which means that most people must travel from their home and workplace to the station by another means.

    “Trains and light rail can carry high volumes of passengers but only between stations, which means that most people must travel from their home and workplace to the station by another means.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 4. Implications · p. 12

    Various other shifts in commuter and consumer behaviour may also increase the number of miles travelled by driverless cars compared to existing vehicles.

    “Various other shifts in commuter and consumer behaviour may also increase the number of miles travelled by driverless cars compared to existing vehicles.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given
    § 5. Realising the benefits of a driverless world · p. 13

    Public opinion against people behaving like 'drunk robots' will drive governments to ban human drivers.

    “ultimately, we suspect, public opinion against people behaving like 'drunk robots' will drive governments to ban human drivers.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation
    § Introduction · p. 9

    The actions of other driverless vehicles will almost certainly be predictable and their intentions transparent to driverless vehicles.

    “In comparison, the actions of other driverless vehicles will almost certainly be predictable and their intentions transparent to driverless vehicles”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Ferreras, 2013 source
    • cites Fagnant and Kockelman, 2015a

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 4. Implications · p. 10

    When an individual drops a destination pin on an app and nominates an arrival or departure time, an autonomous vehicle will be dispatched to provide the necessary transport.

    “When an individual drops a destination pin on an 'app' on her phone and nominates a particular arrival or departure time, an autonomous vehicle will be dispatched to provide the necessary transport.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given
    § 5. Realising the benefits of a driverless world · p. 13

    Driverless vehicle technology creates opportunities to establish a universal and efficient public transport system and to create more liveable urban spaces by reclaiming public space currently dedicated to carparks and freeways.

    “We have, further, emphasised the opportunities that driverless vehicle technology creates to establish a universal and efficient public transport system and to create more liveable urban spaces by reclaiming public space currently dedicated to carparks and freeways.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation
    § 4. Implications · p. 10

    Eventually, when there are no human drivers, traffic lights, give way signs, street signs, speed limit signs, and much other physical infrastructure will no longer be necessary, being replaced with digital versions in a cloud; cars will adjust speeds automatically and bid for the right to cross intersections in an electronic auction.

    “Eventually, when there are no human drivers, traffic lights, give way signs, street signs, speed limit signs, and a good deal of other physical infrastructure will no longer be necessary, being replaced with digital versions in a 'cloud': cars will adjust their speeds automatically to safely handle road and traffic conditions and will 'bid' for the right to cross intersections at a particular time”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Zohdy and Rakha, 2016 source
    • cites Levin and Boyles, 2015 source
    • cites Levin et al., 2016 source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Introduction · p. 8

    If we focus on the situation of the vast majority of drivers who might actually be exposed to a slightly higher risk of death or injury in a driverless vehicle, we would be trading off their safety-and occasionally their lives-for benefits that will accrue to others.

    “If we focus on the situation of the vast majority of drivers who might actually be exposed to a (slightly) higher risk of death or injury in a driverless vehicle it becomes apparent that we would be trading off their safety - and occasionally their lives - for benefits that will accrue to others.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 5. Realising the benefits of a driverless world · p. 12

    In a mixed fleet environment, assuming manual control of a vehicle will open individuals to legal jeopardy.

    “In a mixed fleet environment, assuming manual control of a vehicle will open individuals to legal jeopardy”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
53 of 53

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Individuals have a right to risk their own lives, but their right to impose risks on nonconsenting third parties is much weaker.

    “While individuals arguably have a right to risk their own lives, their right to impose risks on nonconsenting third parties is much weaker.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Every time a driver gets behind the wheel of a car they put the lives of other people at risk.

    “Every time a driver gets behind the wheel of a car they put the lives of other people at risk.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Some drivers will remain emotionally or aesthetically attached to their cars and will want to keep driving them even when new models are much safer.

    “Some drivers will remain emotionally or aesthetically attached to their cars and will want to keep driving them even when new models are much safer.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The relative safety of driverless and manual vehicles can be measured by road fatalities.

    “If driverless vehicles would produce fewer road fatalities than would human drivers driving at the same speeds”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Autonomous vehicles will become safer than human drivers.

    “once autonomous vehicles pose a lower risk to third parties than human drivers”
5 of 5

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Goodall 2014a is cited at a page outside its listed range

    Minor

    The text cites page 990 of Goodall 2014a, but the reference list gives that work a page range of 58-65.

1 of 1

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Ackerman, 2014, Korean competition shows weather still a challenge for autonomous cars, IEEE Spectrum, 11
  2. Gao, 2014, A road map to the future for the auto industry, McKinsey Quart., 1
  3. Garza, 2011, Look Ma, no hands: wrinkles and wrecks in the age of autonomous vehicles, New Engl. Law Rev., 46, 581
  4. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2008. National Motor Vehicle Crash Causation Survey: Report to Congress. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration DOT HS, pp. 811.
  5. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2016, Federal Automated Vehicles Policy: Accelerating the Next Revolution in Roadway Safety, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration DOT HS, 812, 329
  6. Tesla, 2016. Tesla Press Information: Autopilot. <https://www.tesla.com/en_AU/presskit/autopilot?redirect=no#autopilot> (viewed 11 December 2016).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Sparrow, R., & Howard, M.
Affiliations
Monash University (AU)
Corresponding author
Sparrow, Robert
ORCID
Sparrow, Robert
Venue
Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-07
Volume
80
Pages
206-215
ISSN
0968-090X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.trc.2017.04.014
OpenAlex
W2613634039
Semantic Scholar
cac098dbd21292671e6917c2952dbf368d33b6aa
Cited by
182
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 33 · 2020: 31 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 2
FWCI
11.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Transportation Research Part C Emerging Technologies (publishedVersion)
  • Monash University Research Portal (Monash University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Automotive Engineering › Autonomous Vehicle Technology and Safety
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
Keywords
autonomous vehicles, ethics of automation, future of transport, road safety, human oversight, transport policy, motor vehicle regulation, consumer acceptance

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-27.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-27.

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review