Abstract
Every maneuver of a vehicle redistributes risks between road users. While human drivers do this intuitively, autonomous vehicles allow and require deliberative algorithmic risk management. But how should traffic risks be distributed among road users? In a global experimental study in eight countries with different cultural backgrounds and almost 11,000 participants, we compared risk distribution preferences. It turns out that risk preferences in road traffic are strikingly similar between the cultural zones. The vast majority of participants in all countries deviates from a guiding principle of minimizing accident probabilities in favor of weighing up the probability and severity of accidents. At the national level, the consideration of accident probability and severity hardly differs between countries. The social dilemma of autonomous vehicles detected in deterministic crash scenarios disappears in risk assessments of everyday traffic situations in all countries. In no country do cyclists receive a risk bonus that goes beyond their higher vulnerability. In sum, our results suggest that a global consensus on the risk ethics of autonomous driving is easier to establish than on the ethics of crashing.
Abstract (translated)
每一次车辆的操作都会重新分配道路上各使用者的风险。尽管人类驾驶员会凭直觉进行风险再分配,自动驾驶汽车则允许并需要通过算法来进行有意识的风险管理。但交通风险应该如何在道路使用者之间分布呢?在一个涵盖八个国家、具有不同文化背景的全球实验研究中,我们对近1.1万名参与者进行了风险分配偏好的对比分析。 结果显示,在道路交通中的风险偏好在各个文化区域间非常相似。所有国家的大多数参与者都偏离了最小化事故概率的原则,而是倾向于权衡事故的概率和严重性。从国家层面来看,各国在考虑事故发生概率和严重性的方法上几乎没有差异。在确定性碰撞场景中发现的自动驾驶车辆的社会困境,在所有国家的日常交通情况风险评估中都不复存在。 没有一个国家会给予骑自行车者超出其更高脆弱性以外的风险补偿。总的来说,我们的研究结果表明,建立全球统一的自动驾驶风险伦理共识比制定碰撞事件中的道德规范要容易得多。
URL
https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.05391