Technische Universität München

Ethical Issues due to Automated

Vehicles
Public perception of ethical issues due to automated
vehicles in Germany

Submitted by Venkata Vishal Velumuri

ge2nij
vishal.velumuri@tum.de

Submitted on 09.03.2022
Abstract
The main objective of the launching of autonomous vehicles was to increase the efficiency of
the road infrastructure, improve the freedom of the drivers, and above all, reduce traffic acci-
dents. Despite the improvement in technologies, there might be situations where the auto-
mated vehicle needs to choose the most moral choice among the two evils. Binding regula-
tions must be made with the public interest and try to reduce the delay in the adoption of
Automated Vehicles (AVs) so that lives saved by AVs can be greater than the deaths caused
in the case of delaying AVs. In the present study, the participants were divided into two groups,
drivers and pedestrians. The study tried to analyze how these groups would want the AV to
act upon these critical situations. In the second part of the study, the sample was again divided
based on their usage of the road infrastructure i.e. Drivers, pedestrians, and people with dis-
abilities, and asked which ethical principles concern them the most upon the introduction of
AVs. The main principles that were considered are responsibility, human autonomy, privacy,
wellbeing, and social justice. It was observed that drivers would consider the minimum casu-
alties situation and the pedestrians would prefer to save the lives of pedestrians in a majority
of events. In ethical principles, responsibility was the biggest concern among drivers and pe-
destrians which was followed by wellbeing, autonomy. The drivers were worried about their
data where the question of privacy arises and social justice a concern by the people who
couldn’t afford to spend a huge amount on an AV.

Ethical Issues due to Automated Vehicles 1

Table of Contents
Abstract ..................................................................................................................... 1

1. Introduction......................................................................................................... 3
1.1. Risks due to automated driving ..................................................................... 3
1.2. Classification of the ethical principles and vehicle classes............................. 3

2. Literature Review ................................................................................................ 4

3. Methodology ....................................................................................................... 5
3.1. Unavoidable harmful situations...................................................................... 5
3.2. Principles of ethics ........................................................................................ 5

4. Results ................................................................................................................ 6

5. Discussion .......................................................................................................... 8

6. Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 9

References .............................................................................................................. 10

2 Ethical Issues due to Automated Vehicles

1. Introduction

1.1. Risks due to automated driving

In this globalizing world, automated driving is considered one of those technologies that have
the potential to account for a major change in mobility. With concern to this change in technol-
ogy comes with risks which give rise to policy changes, and social issues (Bonnefon et al.,
2016). Besides, technological risks also give birth to ethical issues, which might affect the well-
being of people. For example, a study conducted by Roeser (2006) has argued that the emo-
tions of the public must be taken seriously to arrive at well-grounded judgments about the
moral acceptability of risks (Roeser, 2006).

Figure 1: Two traffic situations involving imminent unavoidable harm. The car must decide between (to
the left) killing one pedestrian or the passenger and (to the right) killing several pedestrians or the pas-
senger (Source: Bonnefon et al., 2016)

“AVs have the potential to reduce accidents but not all crashes will be avoided, some crashes
will require the AV to make ethical decisions to choose among two evils” (Bonnefon et al.,
2016). For example, as shown in figure 1, the first case shows if it’s moral to kill a passenger
or sacrifice the life of a passenger and the second case depicts if it’s moral to sacrifice the life
of the passenger in order save that of many passengers. According to a study by Bonnefon
et al., (2016), it was found that people preferred utilitarian morals, according to which the moral
course of action is to minimize casualties. But AVs programmed to follow this might discourage
the buyers.

1.2. Classification of the ethical principles and vehicle classes

The public is interested in the implications of AV in terms of accessibility and fairness. Addi-
tionally, “while the driver needs and use have been heavily studied, vulnerable road user

Ethical Issues due to Automated Vehicles 3

categories such as pedestrians, elderly people are relatively under-researched”(Dogan et al.,
2021). We have chosen the following ethical principles: responsibility, autonomy, wellbeing,
social justice, and privacy.

For a better understanding of people’s opinions on the extent to which they want their vehicle
to be automated, we have adopted the levels of vehicle automation according to the Society
of Automotive Engineers International (SAE, 2018) taxonomy. “In level 1 (driver assistance)
and level 2 (partial driving automation), the human driver monitors the driving environment
and is assisted by a driving automation system for execution of either the lateral or longitudinal
motion control (level 1) or both motion controls (level 2). In level 3 (conditional driving
automation), an automated driving system performs all dynamic tasks of driving (monitoring
of the environment and motion control), but the human driver is expected to be available for
occasional control of the vehicle. In level 4 (high driving automation) and level 5 (full driving
automation), an automated driving system performs all dynamic tasks of driving, without any
human intervention at any time. In level 4, the automated driving system controls the vehicle
within a prescribed operational domain (e.g. high-speed freeway cruising, closed campus
shuttle). In level 5, the automated driving system can operate the vehicle under all on-road
conditions with no design-based restrictions“ (Milakis et al., 2017).

2. Literature Review
“People let their intuitions and socio constructs such as trust, value congruency, emotions
affect their judgment, instead of crunching numbers like experts do” (Dogan et al., 2021). As
Roeser (2006 states in his study, technological risks are differently viewed by different profes-
sions, for example, engineers define risk as a function of probabilities and unwanted conse-
quences such as the number of deaths, degree of pollution. “Policymakers use cost-benefit
analysis to weigh the possible advantages of technology against its possible disadvantages”
(Roeser, 2006). Examples of technological risks that spark heated and emotional debates are
cloning, GM – foods, and nuclear energy.

According to the study conducted by Montemerlo (2008), the first benchmark test for autono-
mous driving was done in realistic urban environments (Montemerlo, 2008). Spieser et al,
2014, concluded in their paper that “automated vehicles (AVs) have the potential to increase
traffic efficiency, pollution reduction, and eliminate up to 90% of traffic accidents which tells
that there might be some unavoidable accidents” (Spieser et al., 2014) Another study con-
ducted by Bonnefon et al, 2016, suggests that AV programming should include decision rules
on how to act in such situations before they become a global commodity. They further carried

4 Ethical Issues due to Automated Vehicles

out an empirical survey with the participants being from the USA assuming that the manufac-
turers and regulators should accomplish three potentially incompatible objectives being con-
sistent, not causing public outrage, and not discouraging buyers. They concluded that regula-
tions might be necessary for AVs but they also need to be counterproductive (Bonnefon et al.,
2016).

Dogan et al., (2021), and their team have studied the ethical issues raised due to the deploy-
ment of AVs with drivers, pedestrians, and road users as the main focus groups. Their study
revealed that “In case of transgression traffic i.e. to comply with prohibited activities such as
crossing a continuous lane line to overtake a stranded vehicle, drivers considered it permissi-
ble while nondrivers considered it as impermissible”. They concluded that with the deployment
of AV, there is strong support for a separate lane for the AV for the sake of safety and efficiency
(Dogan et al., 2021).

3. Methodology

3.1. Unavoidable harmful situations

To achieve the objective of the study, an empirical survey was conducted among different age
groups and compared between the region of Hyderabad, India, and Munich, Germany. In the
survey, we defined the scenarios which collected opinions of the people and how their age.
The following scenarios were depicted in the survey:

a) Kill one pedestrian crossing the road or sacrifice the life of the passenger

b) Kill several pedestrians crossing the road or sacrifice the life of the passenger

3.2. Principles of ethics

The same sample was further asked if they would be comfortable buying an AV if they were
programmed in such a way to sacrifice the life of the passenger and save the pedestrians. On
the next step, the participants were asked their opinion on the ethical principles:

a) Responsibility – Who should be held accountable in the case of an accident?

b) Human Autonomy – Up to what extent should the AVs be autonomous?

c) Well Being – Reduction in travel time, improved road safety, environmental well being

d) Privacy – How well is the data protected?

Ethical Issues due to Automated Vehicles 5

 e) Social Justice – How far can the low-income sectors afford to buy an AV

The above responses were divided according to their age as well as the user group of the
infrastructure i.e. drivers and pedestrians.

With the results, we tried to build the relationship between the age and acceptance level of an
AV.

4. Results
Responses from 56 people in Germany out of which 26 were drivers and 30 were pedestrians
were collected and the analysis is represented in the following bar charts and line graphs.

Figure 2 shows the responses of the pedestrians and drivers on a scale of 1 to 5 (1 being the
choice to protect the driver at all costs and 5 being the choice to protect the pedestrians
whether it’s moral to save the passenger or the pedestrian in two types of scenarios.

In scenario 1 (results depicted in figure 2(a)) where the car must decide between killing one
pedestrian or killing its passenger, drivers had a mixed opinion. Some drivers argued that
since the count on the cases is the same they couldn’t decide while some called it the fate of
the pedestrian and the others questioned why an innocent pedestrian should be killed. Unsur-
prisingly, more than 50% of the pedestrians had a clear opinion that the pedestrian should be
protected.

12

10

0
1 2 3 4 5

Pedestrian Driver

Figure 2 (a): Participants’ response if it’s moral to kill one pedestrian or its own passenger

6 Ethical Issues due to Automated Vehicles

In scenario 2 (results depicted in figure 2(b)) majority as much as more than 65% of pedestri-
ans as well as drivers felt that it was moral to sacrifice the life of the passenger to save that of
several pedestrians so that we could reduce the casualties.

14

12

10

0
1 2 3 4 5

Pedestrian Driver

Figure 2 (b): Participants’ response if it’s moral to kill several pedestrians or its passenger.

Figure 3 depicts the automation level which the public would prefer according to their age. The
majority of the people are willing to accept automation level 4 where the system controls the
vehicle within the prescribed operational domain in the presence of a driver. It can also be
observed that as we go higher in the automation levels, the age group of 18-30 years are more
interested and the interest of other groups is relatively decreasing.

The analysis of people’s concern of the ethical principles raised by AVs is represented in a
tabular form as shown in Table 1. A short overview of the arguments made by the participants
is also summarised.

Responsibility was the biggest concern among all the groups. In case of a death, drivers were
worried they might have to live with the guilt. Some of them also added that the guilt is even
more than that of being sent to jail.

Human autonomy was also a concern among all the groups as this would increase the de-
pendency on the technology which will create difficulties in the future if major changes happen.
Others emphasized that they will gain freedom.

Ethical Issues due to Automated Vehicles 7

 30

25

20

15

10

0
1 2 3 4 5

18-30 31-40 41-50 >50

Figure 3: Participants’ willingness on the automation level. The x-axis describes the level and the y axis
describes the no. of people. The legend indicates the age group.

Wellbeing being the next concern, drivers felt AVs would increase the capacity and showed
reduction in travel time while pedestrians stated that it would stressful while interacting with
the vehicles like crossing the street.

Responsibility Wellbeing Autonomy Privacy Justice

Drivers 23 17 21 21 14
Pedestrians 24 15 9 4 2
Table 1: Analysis of ethical concerns among the participants.

Privacy and Justice were concerns to drivers compared to the pedestrians. The drivers were
concerned saying that their privacy is the most important thing, and were worried about who
will be receiving the data.

5. Discussion
Although our study suggests that in majority of the situations, pedestrians as well as drivers
would rather save the lives of pedestrians than save themselves, most of them would prefer
to buy an AV that would save their lives. This suggests that some people might choose self-
protective AVs and others will choose utilitarian ones. Binding regulations may provide a so-
lution but the regulators themselves will face problems with the disapproval of regulation that
would enforce utilitarian AVs, and the introduction of regulation could delay the adoption of

8 Ethical Issues due to Automated Vehicles

AVs which would result in saved lives by AVs outnumbered by the deaths caused due to
manual vehicles.

Responsibility was the main concern by all the road user groups. Many stakeholders will be
involved in inducing AVs which makes answering the question of responsibility difficult. Nis-
senbaum (1996), stated the accountability issues in a computerized society and defined this
phenomenon as a “problem of many hands” (Nissenbaum, 1996).

We also saw that drivers are more concerned about privacy and autonomy compared to the
others. They might be concerned about their travel records such as routes being taken and
the destinations they are visiting.

Human autonomy and well being were considered to be a concern of all the groups as from
pedestrians’ point of view, they should feel safe to cross a road even though there isn’t anyone
assisting the vehicle in driving and from the driver’s point of view they should be comfortable
with the thought of giving full authority to the vehicle in driving.

Social Justice is a big concern not only for the people from the lower-income class but also for
the people who need to make some customized changes to the vehicle due to their physical
problems such as disabilities. This category of people might have to pay more for the AVs
which are already having high initial costs.

According to the study by Maurya (2022), the majority of the people are willing to accept au-
tomation level 3 which is conditional driving automation in which the driving system performs
all the dynamic tasks but the human driver is expected to stay. While in Germany people are
ready to accept up to high driving automation (Level4). This difference might be because of
the existing infrastructure of India as it is still a developing country unlike Germany, the mixed
traffic conditions, and the extent to which the people could afford it.

6. Conclusion
Overall, drivers have a mixed opinion on whose life should be saved in the event of an una-
voidable accident. They would consider the minimum casualties and in the case of a few pe-
destrians, they would prefer to save the passenger. On the contrary, pedestrians prefer to
save the life of pedestrians in a majority of the cases irrespective of the count on the pedes-
trians crossing the road and the passengers inside the AV. Even though people tend to choose

Ethical Issues due to Automated Vehicles 9

minimum casualties as the moral choice, most of them will prefer to buy AVs that would protect
them at all costs.

The ethical principles that were stated in the paper were presented to different road user
groups. Although there were some concerns about the impacts it would have on an individual
or a society, there are many potential benefits associated with it like an increase in road ca-
pacity, travel time reduction, etc, provided it must meet the expectations of the people.

This suggests that regulations must be made with the interest of the public on AVs as soon as
possible for the potential benefits and to minimize the delay in the adoption of AVs

References
Bonnefon, J. F., Shariff, A., & Rahwan, I. (2016). The social dilemma of autonomous
vehicles. Science, 352(6293), 1573–1576. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf2654

Dogan, E., Barbier, C., & Peyrard, E. (2021, April 26). Public perception of ethical issues
concerning automated mobility: A focus group study among three road user categories.
ACM International Conference Proceeding Series.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3452853.3452877

Maurya, A. (2022). SWOT Analysis of Automated Vehicles and its Acceptance in India.
Working Paper. Cross-Cutting Fundamentals and Methods, Technical University of
Munich

Milakis, D., van Arem, B., & van Wee, B. (2017). Policy and society related implications of
automated driving: A review of literature and directions for future research. Journal of
Intelligent Transportation Systems: Technology, Planning, and Operations, 21(4), 324–
348. https://doi.org/10.1080/15472450.2017.1291351

Nissenbaum, H. (1996). Accountability in a computerized society. Science and Engineering

Ethics, 2(1), 25–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02639315

Roeser, S. (2006). The role of emotions in judging the moral acceptability of risks. Safety
Science, 44(8), 689–700. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2006.02.001

Spieser, C., Kevin, K., Ballantyne, R., Zhang, E., Frazzoli, D., Morton, M. P., Spieser, K.,
Treleaven, K., Zhang, R., Frazzoli, E., Morton, D., & Pavone, M. (2014). Road Vehicle
Automation. In Lecture Notes in Mobility. Springer.
http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/82904http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/

Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), 2016.

10 Ethical Issues due to Automated Vehicles