Cited by 292Autonomous Vehicle Technology and SafetyEthics and Social Impacts of AIHuman-Automation Interaction and Safety

Ethical Decision Making during Automated Vehicle Crashes

Open access
Goodall, Noah J.·2014·Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board

Abstract

Automated vehicles have received much attention recently, particularly the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency Urban Challenge vehicles, Google's self-driving cars, and various others from auto manufacturers. These vehicles have the potential to reduce crashes and improve roadway efficiency significantly by automating the responsibilities of the driver. Still, automated vehicles are expected to crash occasionally, even when all sensors, vehicle control components, and algorithms function perfectly. If a human driver is unable to take control in time, a computer will be responsible for precrash behavior. Unlike other automated vehicles, such as aircraft, in which every collision is catastrophic, and unlike guided track systems, which can avoid collisions only in one dimension, automated roadway vehicles can predict various crash trajectory alternatives and select a path with the lowest damage or likelihood of collision. In some situations, the preferred path may be ambiguous. The study reported here investigated automated vehicle crashing and concluded the following: (a) automated vehicles would almost certainly crash, (b) an automated vehicle's decisions that preceded certain crashes had a moral component, and (c) there was no obvious way to encode complex human morals effectively in software. The paper presents a three-phase approach to develop ethical crashing algorithms; the approach consists of a rational approach, an artificial intelligence approach, and a natural language requirement. The phases are theoretical and should be implemented as the technology becomes available.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3141/2424-07

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

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

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 38 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [6]6. Transportation Research Board. National Automated Highway System Research Program: A Review - Special Report 253 . The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 1998.
  2. [14]14. Guizzo, E. Toyota's Semi-Autonomous Car Will Keep You Safe. IEEE Spectrum Automation, Jan. 8, 2013. http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/robotics/artificialintelligence/toyota-semi-autonomous-lexus-car-will-keep-you-safe. Accessed June 27, 2013.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Goodall, N. J.
Affiliations
Virginia Transportation Research Council (US)
Corresponding author
Goodall, Noah J.
Venue
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board
Published
2014-01
Volume
2424
Issue
1
Pages
58-65
ISSN
  • 0361-1981 (ISSN-L)
  • 2169-4052
OpenAlex
W2118960450
Cited by
292
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 32 · 2020: 41 · 2019: 28 · 2018: 35 · 2017: 26 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 2
FWCI
22.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Transportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Funders
University of Virginia
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, ethical decision-making, traffic accidents

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.

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