Date created: | Last Updated:

Category: Project

Description: Driverless cars are predicted to dramatically reduce collisions and casualties on the roads. However, there has been controversy about how they should be programmed to respond in the event of an unavoidable collision. Should they be programmed to ‘Save the Most’ lives, prioritise the lives of pedestrians, or occupants of the vehicle? Some have argued that such cars should have a Mandatory Ethical Setting, aiming to minimise casualties. While this would appear to have wide international public support, previous work has also suggested regional variation in the preferences of the public, and some reluctance to purchase driverless cars with this programming. In two online surveys in the UK and Japan, we examined the views of participants about driverless cars, and the influence of choice of a Personal Ethical Setting as well as framing on hypothetical purchase decisions. We found striking differences between UK and Japanese respondents. While a majority of UK respondents preferred driverless cars to be programmed to save the most lives, Japanese survey participants wished to save pedestrians. We observed reduced willingness to purchase driverless cars with a mandated ethical setting (compared to offering choice) in both countries. However, the reduction was greater in the UK due to the diversity of preferred algorithms. Participants’ willingness to purchase was influenced by question framing and by concern for family members (whether as pedestrians or occupants of the car). It appears that the public values relevant to programming of driverless cars differ between UK and Japan. The highest uptake of driverless cars may be achieved by providing Personal Ethical Settings. Since uptake of driverless cars (rather than specific algorithm used) is potentially the biggest factor in reducing in traffic related accidents, a choice of ethical settings may be optimal for driverless cars on multiple ethical theories.