thesis statement about driving a car is an important responsibility

Why Is Driving A Car An Important Responsibility? (9 Reasons Why)

Usually, people who first get their driver’s license and a car are ecstatic at the idea of being able to drive anywhere they want. However, it is always important to remember that driving a car is a huge responsibility.

You may be wondering why driving a car is an important responsibility. I did the research, and here is what I found!

Why Is Driving A Car An Important Responsibility?

1. impacts passengers.

Generally, one of the main reasons you should take driving seriously is that it will impact the passengers in your car.

When other people ride in the same car that you drive, they are putting their trust in you to drive safely.

If you were to get into an accident, you would be at fault for any injuries caused to the passengers in your car.

This would lead to a large emotional and financial burden to you, which is why you need to be a responsible driver.

2. Affects Those Around You

Other than the passengers in your car, how responsibly you drive a car can affect the people that are around you.

For instance, there are many other people around while you drive, such as other drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists.

You need to focus on driving to avoid accidentally harming any of the people surrounding you.

For instance, not checking the blind spots of your car or trying to change lanes too quickly can lead to you accidentally hitting someone with your car.

Another example is how you should follow the given speed limit in each area, as some areas have slow speed limits because there are a lot of pedestrians.

3. Your Life

Another major reason why it is crucial to see driving as a huge responsibility is that your life will depend on how you drive.

For instance, distracted driving, which can be driving while texting, speaking to others, etc., can put you at a higher risk for an accident.

Distracted driving was the cause of 3,142 fatal accidents back in 2020 in the United States.

Therefore, it is important that you give your full attention to driving while you are on the road as your life will depend on how focused you are at driving.

4. Lessens Wear And Tear In Internal Car Components

While it is expected that your car will go through some wear and tear as you use it, your car will likely wear out faster if you are a bad driver.

For instance, driving fast and hitting the brakes hard without slowing down for a stop can put a lot of pressure on your brake system.

If you were to do this very frequently, you will likely have to replace a lot of components in your brake system quicker than you normally would have.

On the other hand, driving safely will lessen the wear and tear that you car goes through.

5. Less Frequent Wheel Issues

As mentioned earlier, driving your car badly can take a toll on the internal parts of your car, and it can also affect the exterior parts, such as the wheels.

For example, it is normal for the tires and car rims to wear out over time, as these will eventually need to be replaced.

However, performing bad driving practices, such as driving over roads you should not or driving too fast, can wear these parts out faster.

As such, you would find yourself replacing these parts a lot quicker than you ought to, which can cost you a lot of money.

6. Avoiding Hefty Penalties And Fines

If you do not practice safe driving and the laws for driving in your state, you will likely get caught by traffic enforcers.

Once this happens, you will have to pay for expensive fines that will also be recorded on your driving record.

Moreover, breaking enough traffic laws can eventually lead to them taking your license away, and you may not be able to get another one for several years.

7. Keeping An Eye On Maintenance

Typically, owning a car means that you have to deal with the upkeep of a car, and you need to stay on top of the cars maintenance to avoid larger problems in the future.

One example is how you need to regularly change your car’s oil because having oil or not enough oil in your car can ruin the car’s engine.

Another example is how you may have a leak in one of the hoses that antifreeze goes through, and if you ignore it your car will likely overheat.

A responsible driver keeps an eye out for any maintenance the car may need and fixes it before the damage gets worse.

8. Avoiding Property Damage

As mentioned earlier, getting into an accident can lead to harming people in and around your car, but it could also cause damage to other people’s property.

Property damage is often expensive, and whoever was at fault for the damage is the person who will have to pay for it.

9. Less Risk Of A Lawsuit

If you were to be in an accident and paid for the damages, that does not keep you away from a lawsuit as some people can still sue you.

Conclusion 

Driving should always be considered a huge responsibility for anyone, no matter how long they have been driving.

Other than keeping you and others safe, driving a car should be taken seriously to avoid costly damages and lawsuits.

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Welcome to Autoily.com! We are a group of passionate car, motorbike, RV, and pickup truck owners. Our aim is to provide concise, easy-to-understand, and useful information on vehicles, maintenance, and components.

© Autoily.com

Understanding why driving is an important responsibility 

Table of Contents

Why is Driving a Car an Important Responsibility?

In today’s fast-paced world, driving has become an essential aspect of daily life for millions of people around the world. Whether it’s commuting to work, running errands, or cruising the streets, owning a car offers unparalleled freedom and mobility. However, with this convenience comes an important responsibility that should not be overlooked.

Importance of responsible driving

Driving a car is not just a privilege. It is a responsibility that carries great weight and consequences. As drivers, we have a duty not only to ourselves but also to our passengers, fellow road users, and the wider community. This responsibility is manifested in several important areas:

1. Safety First

The fundamental importance of safety when it comes to driving cannot be overstated. Every time we get behind the wheel, we put our lives and the well-being of others in our hands. Obeying traffic laws, obeying speed limits, wearing seat belts, and avoiding distractions are essential aspects of responsible driving that help reduce the risk of accidents and injuries.

2. Environmental Impacts

Driving has a significant environmental impact, contributing to air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, and climate change. As responsible drivers, we must be mindful of our carbon footprint and take steps to reduce our environmental impact. This includes adopting environmentally friendly driving habits such as carpooling, maintaining your vehicles properly, and choosing fuel-efficient vehicles whenever possible.

3. Economic Considerations

Owning and operating a vehicle comes with various financial responsibilities, including fuel purchases, insurance payments, and vehicle maintenance. Additionally, accidents and traffic violations can result in expensive fines, repairs and increased insurance premiums. By driving responsibly and avoiding accidents and traffic violations, we can reduce these financial burdens and contribute to a more stable and sustainable economy.

Read More: The Ultimate Guide to Car Paint Protection: Options and Benefits

4. Legal Obligations

Driving is a privilege granted to individuals who meet certain requirements and abide by certain regulations. As such, drivers have a legal responsibility to follow traffic laws, maintain valid licenses and registrations, and have adequate insurance coverage. Failure to meet these legal obligations can result in fines, license suspension, or even criminal charges in serious cases.

5. Social Responsibility

Responsible driving goes beyond our individual actions to encompass our wider impact on society. By respecting road users, showing patience and courtesy, and participating in initiatives to improve road safety, we can contribute to a more harmonious and harmonious community. Additionally, by reducing traffic congestion and reducing accidents, responsible driving helps increase the overall quality of life for everyone.

Read More: Quick and Easy Car Waxing Techniques: A Comprehensive Guide for Beginners

6. Community Influence

Responsible driving also has a direct impact on our communities. By reducing the number of accidents and traffic incidents, we help reduce the pressure on emergency services and the healthcare system. Fewer accidents mean fewer injuries, fewer deaths, and ultimately, a healthier and safer community for everyone.Additionally, responsible driving contributes to the overall livability of our neighborhoods. By respecting traffic laws, obeying speed limits, and being mindful of noise pollution, we can create quieter, more peaceful streets where pedestrians and cyclists feel safer and more comfortable. do

7. Role Modeling for Future Generations

As drivers, we serve as role models for future generations of motorcyclists. Our behavior behind the wheel sets an example for young drivers who are just learning the rules of the road. By demonstrating responsible driving habits, we can instill in them the importance of safety, courtesy and respect for others, which can create an impact that extends far beyond our own actions.

Read More: Effective Bug and Tar Removal: A Comprehensive Guide for Pristine Vehicles

8. Personal Health and Well-being

Driving responsibly isn’t just about the safety of others – it’s also about our own health and well-being. By avoiding risky behaviors like speeding, aggressive driving, and driving under the influence, we reduce our chances of getting involved in accidents or injuring ourselves. Additionally, responsible driving promotes a less stressful and more enjoyable driving experience, which benefits our mental and emotional health.

9. Adaptation to Changing Conditions

A hallmark of responsible driving is the ability to adapt to changing road and weather conditions. Whether it’s traveling through heavy rain, snow, or fog, or adjusting our driving behavior in construction zones or school zones, responsible drivers are alert and attentive at all times. By being aware and prepared, we can reduce the risk of accidents and ensure a safer driving experience for ourselves and others.

10. Continuous Education and Improvement

Responsible driving also includes a commitment to continuous education and improvement. Technology, road infrastructure, and traffic laws are constantly evolving, and as a driver, it’s important to stay informed and up-to-date on these changes. Engaging in defensive driving courses, attending workshops on road safety, and keeping abreast of new traffic regulations are all ways to enhance our driving skills and knowledge.Additionally, self-assessment is an important aspect of responsible driving. Regularly reviewing our driving habits, identifying areas for improvement, and taking proactive steps to address them can help us become safer and more responsible drivers in the long run.

Read More: Unveiling Car Care Problem Solvers: Navigating Common Vehicle Issues

11. Environmental Responsibility

In an era of increasing environmental awareness, responsible driving also requires a commitment to environmental responsibility. Vehicle emissions contribute to air pollution and climate change, affecting public health and the environment.As responsible drivers, we can reduce our carbon footprint by choosing fuel-efficient vehicles, carpooling or using public transportation whenever possible, and practicing environmentally friendly driving habits such as Avoid excessive idling and maintain proper tire pressure.Additionally, supporting policies and initiatives that promote clean transportation alternatives, such as electric vehicles and renewable fuels, can help reduce the environmental impact of driving and pave the way for a more sustainable future. .

12. Advocacy and Community Engagement

Finally, responsible driving involves advocacy and community involvement. By actively participating in efforts to improve road safety, raise awareness of the importance of responsible driving, and advocate for policies that prioritize traffic safety, we contribute to our communities and society as a whole. can make a meaningful impact. This may include volunteering with local organizations that focus on road safety, participating in public awareness campaigns, or working with policy makers to promote initiatives that address important issues such as Addresses distracted driving, impaired driving, and pedestrian safety.Through collective action and cooperation, we can work to create safer roads, reduce traffic accidents and fatalities, and promote a culture of responsibility and respect among all road users.

Finally, driving a car is not the only means of transportation. This is an important responsibility that requires careful consideration and honest behavior. By prioritizing safety, reducing environmental impact, meeting our legal obligations, and embracing our social responsibility, we can ensure that driving is a safe, enjoyable experience for future generations. Be an enjoyable, and sustainable activity.Remember, the next time you hit the road, you’re not just driving – you’re responsible for keeping yourself and others safe, protecting the environment, and upholding the values of a responsible driver. have been.

What is your responsibility when driving?

When you get into the driver’s seat, you’re not just driving; You are taking on an important responsibility that goes far beyond the limits of your car. Your primary responsibility while driving is to ensure the safety of yourself, your passengers and all other road users. This means obeying traffic laws, obeying speed limits, and avoiding distractions like texting or phone calls.

Additionally, proper vehicle maintenance and vigilance at all times are essential aspects of fulfilling your responsibility as a driver. Another important aspect of responsible driving is to respect the environment.

From carbon emissions to fuel consumption, every mile you drive has an impact on the planet. As a responsible driver, it is your duty to reduce this impact by adopting environmentally friendly driving habits, such as car pooling, maintaining a steady speed, and avoiding unnecessary slowing down.

By reducing your carbon footprint and promoting sustainable transport methods, you contribute to a healthier and more sustainable future for all. Furthermore, your responsibility extends to your community and society. By showing courtesy, restraint and respect for other road users, you help promote a positive driving culture that benefits everyone. 

Additionally, advocating for road safety initiatives , supporting initiatives that promote responsible driving, and actively participating in efforts to improve transportation infrastructure are all ways that you as a driver can But can fulfill their wider responsibility.Ultimately, by accepting your responsibilities on the road, you contribute to creating safer, more sustainable, and more inclusive transportation systems for future generations.

Why is driving a car is an important?

Driving a car is essential to modern living, offering unparalleled convenience and freedom. It enables individuals to access various destinations quickly and efficiently. Additionally, driving promotes independence, allowing people to find employment opportunities, run errands and engage in social activities with ease. Additionally, mastering driving skills enhances personal safety and emergency preparedness, empowering individuals to effectively navigate unexpected situations. Embrace invaluable driving skills for a more enriched and independent lifestyle.

What is the most important thing of a car?

The most important aspect of a car lies in its safety features, which ensure the health of passengers and drivers alike. From advanced braking systems to robust airbag configurations, modern vehicles prioritize safety to reduce the risks associated with accidents. Additionally, reliable performance is paramount, as reliable performance promotes confidence and peace of mind for drivers. Additionally, fuel efficiency plays an important role, minimizing environmental impact while maximizing cost effectiveness for owners. Embrace these key elements to ensure a complete and safe driving experience with your car.

What is the most important part of the car and why?

The engine stands as the heart of any car, playing a vital role in its functionality and performance. It converts fuel into mechanical energy, propels the vehicle and enables smooth operation. With advancements in technology, engines have become more efficient, powerful and eco-friendly, enhancing the overall driving experience. Additionally, proper engine maintenance ensures longevity and reliability, reducing the risk of breakdowns and costly repairs. Invest in regular maintenance and prioritize engine health to ensure optimal performance and longevity of your vehicle.

What are the 5 main parts of car?

The five main parts of a car are:

Engine: The heart of the vehicle, responsible for converting fuel into mechanical energy to power the vehicle.

Transmission: Transfers power from the engine to the wheels, allowing the car to move forward or backward at different speeds.

Chassis: The framework of the car, providing structural support and housing essential components such as the suspension, steering system, and brakes.

Body: The outer shell of the car, protects the passengers and houses the internal components such as seats, dashboard and controls.

Electrical System: Inside the car includes the battery, alternator and wiring, electrical components such as lights, ignition systems, and entertainment systems.

What is the most important part of a car engine?

The most important part of a car engine is the cylinder block, also known as the engine block. This component acts as the foundation of the engine, which includes important elements such as cylinders, pistons and crankshafts. It provides structural integrity and support for various engine components, while also facilitating the combustion process that creates power to propel the vehicle. Without a strong and well-functioning cylinder block, engine performance and longevity will be compromised. Therefore, the cylinder block is the main cornerstone of any vehicle engine.

What is the main brain of the car?

The central brain of a car is its Engine Control Unit (ECU) or Electronic Control Module (ECM). This sophisticated computer system acts as the vehicle’s central nervous system, managing and coordinating various functions such as fuel injection, ignition timing, emission control, and other engine parameters. Through sensors located throughout the vehicle, the ECU continuously monitors and adjusts these parameters to optimize performance, fuel efficiency, and emissions. As the technical core of a modern automobile, the ECU plays an important role in ensuring smooth operation and optimal performance.

What’s the heart of a car?

The heart of a car is its engine. Just as the heart pumps blood to sustain life, the engine produces power to propel the vehicle and enable its functionality. This vital component converts fuel into mechanical energy, providing the force necessary to propel the car forward. With advancements in technology, engines have become more efficient, powerful and environmentally friendly, acting as the driving force behind modern transportation. Adopting proper care and maintenance ensures that the heart of your car continues to beat strong, delivering excellent performance and reliability on the road.

What is the main car in cars?

The main car in “Cars” refers to Lightning McQueen, the charismatic and energetic race car protagonist of the animated film franchise produced by Pixar Animation Studios. Voiced by Owen Wilson, Lightning McQueen embarks on a journey of self-discovery while learning important life lessons as he struggles to succeed on the racetrack. With his distinctive red paint job, lightning bolt decals, and charming personality, Lightning McQueen has captivated audiences around the world. Through his adventures, the character embodies themes of friendship, perseverance, and personal growth, making him a central focus and beloved icon of the “Cars” franchise.

What is the most common thing in all vehicles?

The most common component found in all vehicles is the steering wheel. Acting as the primary interface between the driver and the vehicle, the steering wheel enables control and maneuverability. Whether it’s a car, truck, motorcycle, or any other mode of transportation, the steering wheel allows drivers to steer their vehicle on the roads and navigate different situations. Its universal presence underscores its importance in the operation and safety of all vehicles, making it an essential feature across the automotive spectrum.

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Why Driving A Car Is An Important Responsibility

Quick Navigation

As exhilarating as being behind the wheel feels, you should never forget that driving a car is an important responsibility.

Especially when we consider the number of passengers in the car and pedestrians outside.

If you’re a new driver who’s still unclear why driving cars is a big responsibility, read on.

Reasons Why Driving Cars Is A Major Responsibility

On your first day of Drivers Ed classes, you’ll get a detailed explanation of why driving is an important responsibility.

That’s because drivers shouldn’t be allowed behind the wheel or on the road without understanding this.

If you need a refresher on the importance of driving as a responsibility, here are five reasons why.

Driving A Car Is A Big Responsibility Because Your Life Depends On It

You need to drive your car responsibly because you’ll put your own life in danger if you don’t.

Taking this task not seriously will also make you develop bad habits.

Examples of habits indicating you don’t consider driving cars as an important responsibility include:

• Getting distracted while on the phone or interacting with passengers
• Driving under the influence
• Not wearing a seatbelt
• Being behind the wheel despite the lack of sleep

Statistics show that 42,000 drivers are killed yearly, and $250 billion are billed as annual injury costs.

So, make sure to treat driving cars as an important responsibility, at least for your own sake.

The Way You Drive And Control The Car Impacts Passengers

As a driver, you are responsible for the passengers next to and behind you. Therefore, you need to be alert, attentive, and cautious at all times.

You’ll also need to avoid habits that put passengers and yourself in danger. In addition to the bad habits above, you should avoid:

• Changing lanes too quickly or without checking blind spots
• Driving through bad weather or without proper preparations
• Not securing cargo properly before driving off

Anyone with at least one of the above habits doesn’t consider driving cars is an important responsibility.

Thankfully, it’s never late to rectify things and prioritize the safety of others traveling in the same car.

Driving Cars Is A Responsibility Because Of The Other People On The Road

In addition to the people inside your car, you need to drive with pedestrians’ safety in mind.

That’s why you need to understand your responsibilities to pedestrians. These include:

• Stopping for pedestrians while making turns
• Stopping for pedestrians even when the traffic light turns green
• Never turning left in front of a pedestrian crossing
• Not blocking the crosswalk when stopped at a red light
• Recognizing and respecting pedestrians with disabilities as well as seniors and children

Local driving laws have already defined the responsibilities drivers have towards pedestrians.

So, if you acknowledge driving cars is an important responsibility, get your hands on this document.

Make sure to read it carefully and follow its instructions to guarantee everyone’s safety.

Driving Is A Big Deal Because You Share The Road With Other Motorists

Driving is a big responsibility because you’ll be sharing the road with other drivers. Therefore, you need to stick to a safe and reasonable speed given traffic.

Doing so will protect you and any passengers you have on board.

In addition to being vigilant, you need always to control the vehicle. It is important since you may need to swerve or stop quickly in response to a threat.

It would be best if you also were up to date on your vehicle’s maintenance and upkeep.

Any mechanical or equipment failure can lead to accidents and label you as a ‘negligent’ driver.

Drivers Are Responsible For Protecting Others’ Possessions

Aside from people, there are other things on the road or the curb. As irresponsible driving can impact these, you need to focus while driving altogether.

Especially since any sum of money can’t replace some possessions, for instance, a family pet will have a lot of value which you can never compensate fully.

So, always be vigilant and remind yourself that driving is an important responsibility.

Proving You Understand Driving Is A Major Responsibility

By now, you know what’s at stake if you don’t consider driving cars as a great responsibility.

So, if you wish to improve behind the wheel, here are some steps to combine with the recommendations above.

Avoid Overtaking Other Vehicles

You may be tempted to overtake other drivers, especially if they’re driving too slowly. However, you need to avoid speeding if you wish to avoid any accidents.

Besides, obsessively overtaking cars indicates overconfidence and reckless driving. These are two traits responsible drivers don’t have, and neither should you.

Follow The Two-Second Gap Rule

To protect yourself and other motorists, make sure to maintain a safe distance .

In addition to ensuring you stay away from other cars, this distance gives you enough room and time to react.

The best way to estimate this distance is by using the two-second gap rule. According to it, your car should take two seconds minimum to reach the car ahead of it or behind it.

However, it would help to increase this time duration and gap during bad weather conditions.

Don’t Disregard Any Traffic Rules

The heavy penalties associated with breaking traffic rules are a testament to driving cars being an important responsibility.

Following these rules ensures your safety, so you need to follow them.

You should also identify and understand each sign you come across. Most new drivers skip this, putting themselves and others in danger.

Wear Your Seatbelt At All Times

To protect yourself and the passengers in your car, ensure everyone wears their seatbelts. It may not feel ‘cool,’ and others may tease you.

However, your seatbelt will save you from any injuries, whether minor or fatal.

Stay Calm Even When Others Aren’t

You’re bound to encounter individuals who don’t think driving is a big responsibility.

Their aggressive driving may cause you to lose your calm, especially if they’re rude or condescending.

Your safety and that of others should always be your priority. Therefore, ignore an aggressive driver.

It won’t take them long to grow calmer and stop bothering you and others.

Learn How To Carry Out Simple Repairs

You should know how to take care of minor repair tasks such as changing a tire. A busy street can quickly become busier if your car breaks down.

Besides, you’ll be blamed for the traffic. Even if you have a roadside assistance plan, learn to make minor fixes when necessary.

Be Prepared For Accidents

You can’t rule out accidents altogether even if you’re a good, responsible driver. Therefore, be prepared for these beforehand.

For instance, ensure your insurance is up to date. Moreover, place vital information such as emergency phone numbers in the glovebox.

The Bottom Line

Contrary to what most people assume, driving a car is in no way a right.

Driving cars is an important responsibility, especially since lives and possessions can be affected by wrong decisions or irresponsible behaviors.

So, unless you want this right to be taken from you, you should avoid abusing it.

Instead, focus on being responsible and courteous whenever you’re in the driver’s seat for your sake and others.

Kevin has been hanging around cars and automobile magazines since he knew what a car is. He grew up in his father’s 1995 Mercedes E320 Wagon and Volkwagon Phaeton W12 2004. He rides his first car, a manual 1979 Porche 911SC.

Currently, he owns an Acura Integra GS-R. During his childhood, he showed a keen interest in how things actually work and fix them. This passion transforms into his eternal love for cars and bestows him an ideal position in one of the leading automobile companies; whenever he finds time, he takes out his Acura and opts for the longest possible route to find hidden wholesome pleasure in a road trip.

Want to read some of the articles written by Kevin? Head to our blog section to find out all the articles written by Kevin.

Related Posts:

Personal Car Driving’ Importance Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Introduction

Works cited.

Driving is a life skill that every person should acquire. Proper driving reflects on the overall approach to life. Driving is a fundamental aspect of life; it influences the overall behavior of the person. Learning car control techniques and tips apply to how an individual can have a broad outlook on life.

Driving encompasses lessons which one has to learn, to drive safely (Green Life). It is important to acknowledge that driving is a skill that once you have acquired, you will use it for the rest of your life. Therefore, it is crucial to choose the right instructor and allow sufficient time to take the instructor‘s advice. Traffic offenses’ amount not only to the violation of traffic laws, but also a violation to other people’s rights and when an individual drives carefully it means being a law-abiding citizen and shows his or her belief to protect lives (Crabtree).

In driving a personal car, it is less stressful and comfortable as it avoids synchronization of the various means of public transport. To overcome the obstacle of reckless driving, other aspects of life have to be attained and taught as well, which has a positive effect to not only the person but the entire community in general. Careful driving enables individuals to exercise their rights and become role models in society.

Private driving is convenient for; it is not organized on predetermined programs. Parents also use the time they take in a while driving to connect with their children due to their busy schedules (Ellaway et al.). Given these key factors, it is clear that driving a personal car is beneficial compared to public transport.

Flexibility and Convenience

Driving a personal car is convenient and flexible for the user. It reduces the use of public transport systems, which is designed to work according to schedules or timetables. Sometimes, these plans can be canceled or be delayed, thereby distracting prior arranged activities of a person.

Similarly, it saves time that could have been spent walking to the bus stop or train station or waiting at bus stops. With new residential areas and employment opportunities emerging away from the major cities, most people have resorted to driving because public systems do not extend beyond defined city boundaries (Crabtree). Additionally, workers who may be required to work late hours to meet deadlines can only do so if they can drive themselves around.

Eases the Demand for Coordination

Personal driving eases the effort of planning how to move from one destination to another, especially if there is heavy luggage to be transported. When driving public vehicles, a lot of coordination and planning is mandatory if a person is required to use more than one bus or train (Green Life).

Personal driving will reduce the coordination of the various modes of transportation and aid in achieving more by going to different places. In the same way, people who live far away from modern services can only depend on private driving to obtain services.

Privacy and Comfort

Driving a private car provides privacy and comfort; this is difficult to come by in a public driven vehicle. Various public systems service providers do not make enough revenue to cover their costs. Consequently, driving a public vehicle is dirty and smelly due to poor maintenance. It becomes congested and overcrowded during peak hours, making the drive uncomfortable.

In a private car, family or friends have the liberty of discussing confidential matters without the fear of another person eavesdropping on their conversation (Ellaway et al.). Parents can connect with their kids or help them with their homework in the middle of their busy schedules. One can also choose the music they like, control the temperature, drive at a comfortable speed, and adjust the seats to suit their height or body weight. There is no fear of theft or losing personal items.

Convenient for Children, Elderly and Disabled

Driving is faster and convenient for children, disabled, elderly, or ailing people. It is not advisable for a parent to take the bus or train with a baby.

Private means of driving offers a convenient opportunity for people with disabilities to go to work school or run critical errands since their cars can be customized to suit their various needs and give them a sense of independence and self-determination (Ellaway et al.). The elderly and ailing will avoid the stress found in public transport system. Correspondingly, an expectant mother, cannot rely on a public driven vehicle; she requires private vehicles for emergencies.

Driving is the skill that is carried out by the subconscious part of the brain. It is a life skill that is essential in developing different aspects of life, which enables one to make appropriate decisions in real-life conditions. This involves applying and realizing the brakes, accelerating, and having full control of the car (Green Life).

Driving your car is beneficial because it is more convenient, flexible, comfortable, and private. It is possible to run errands and accomplish most of the set plans because it is not dependent on timetables and schedules. It also reduces time wastage since private driving has no designated stops. Private driving is important because driving public transport is emotionally and physically exhausting.

Crabtree, Vexen. “ Transport is Good. The Advantages of Pooled Transport. ” 2007. Web.

Ellaway, Anne, Macintyre Sally, Rosemary Hiscock and Ade Kearns. “ In The Driving Seat: Psychological Benefits From Private Motor Vehicle Transport Compared To Public Transport ”, 2003. Web.

Green Life . “Reduce Global Warming: Take Public Transport. ” 2009. Web.

• Japanese Greener Engines' Industry in the Australian Market
• Why People Should Study Driving?
• Driverless Cars and Safety Concerns
• Is the Robotics Development Helpful or Harmful?
• Technology Upgrading in Resolving Problems
• Transport: Extended Definition of Bicycles
• Product Globalization: Toyota Premio Vehicle
• Curbing Urban Traffic Problems
• Audi Car Dealership: Building and Construction Description
• EPA Regulations and the Impact on Transportation Standards
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2020, April 27). Personal Car Driving' Importance. https://ivypanda.com/essays/personal-car-driving-importance/

"Personal Car Driving' Importance." IvyPanda , 27 Apr. 2020, ivypanda.com/essays/personal-car-driving-importance/.

IvyPanda . (2020) 'Personal Car Driving' Importance'. 27 April.

IvyPanda . 2020. "Personal Car Driving' Importance." April 27, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/personal-car-driving-importance/.

1. IvyPanda . "Personal Car Driving' Importance." April 27, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/personal-car-driving-importance/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Personal Car Driving' Importance." April 27, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/personal-car-driving-importance/.

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base
• How to Write a Thesis Statement | 4 Steps & Examples

How to Write a Thesis Statement | 4 Steps & Examples

Published on January 11, 2019 by Shona McCombes . Revised on August 15, 2023 by Eoghan Ryan.

A thesis statement is a sentence that sums up the central point of your paper or essay . It usually comes near the end of your introduction .

Your thesis will look a bit different depending on the type of essay you’re writing. But the thesis statement should always clearly state the main idea you want to get across. Everything else in your essay should relate back to this idea.

You can write your thesis statement by following four simple steps:

• Start with a question
• Write your initial answer
• Develop your answer
• Refine your thesis statement

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

What is a thesis statement, placement of the thesis statement, step 1: start with a question, step 2: write your initial answer, step 3: develop your answer, step 4: refine your thesis statement, types of thesis statements, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about thesis statements.

A thesis statement summarizes the central points of your essay. It is a signpost telling the reader what the essay will argue and why.

The best thesis statements are:

• Concise: A good thesis statement is short and sweet—don’t use more words than necessary. State your point clearly and directly in one or two sentences.
• Contentious: Your thesis shouldn’t be a simple statement of fact that everyone already knows. A good thesis statement is a claim that requires further evidence or analysis to back it up.
• Coherent: Everything mentioned in your thesis statement must be supported and explained in the rest of your paper.

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

• Academic style
• Vague sentences
• Style consistency

See an example

The thesis statement generally appears at the end of your essay introduction or research paper introduction .

The spread of the internet has had a world-changing effect, not least on the world of education. The use of the internet in academic contexts and among young people more generally is hotly debated. For many who did not grow up with this technology, its effects seem alarming and potentially harmful. This concern, while understandable, is misguided. The negatives of internet use are outweighed by its many benefits for education: the internet facilitates easier access to information, exposure to different perspectives, and a flexible learning environment for both students and teachers.

You should come up with an initial thesis, sometimes called a working thesis , early in the writing process . As soon as you’ve decided on your essay topic , you need to work out what you want to say about it—a clear thesis will give your essay direction and structure.

You might already have a question in your assignment, but if not, try to come up with your own. What would you like to find out or decide about your topic?

For example, you might ask:

After some initial research, you can formulate a tentative answer to this question. At this stage it can be simple, and it should guide the research process and writing process .

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

Now you need to consider why this is your answer and how you will convince your reader to agree with you. As you read more about your topic and begin writing, your answer should get more detailed.

In your essay about the internet and education, the thesis states your position and sketches out the key arguments you’ll use to support it.

The negatives of internet use are outweighed by its many benefits for education because it facilitates easier access to information.

In your essay about braille, the thesis statement summarizes the key historical development that you’ll explain.

The invention of braille in the 19th century transformed the lives of blind people, allowing them to participate more actively in public life.

A strong thesis statement should tell the reader:

• Why you hold this position
• What they’ll learn from your essay
• The key points of your argument or narrative

The final thesis statement doesn’t just state your position, but summarizes your overall argument or the entire topic you’re going to explain. To strengthen a weak thesis statement, it can help to consider the broader context of your topic.

These examples are more specific and show that you’ll explore your topic in depth.

Your thesis statement should match the goals of your essay, which vary depending on the type of essay you’re writing:

• In an argumentative essay , your thesis statement should take a strong position. Your aim in the essay is to convince your reader of this thesis based on evidence and logical reasoning.
• In an expository essay , you’ll aim to explain the facts of a topic or process. Your thesis statement doesn’t have to include a strong opinion in this case, but it should clearly state the central point you want to make, and mention the key elements you’ll explain.

If you want to know more about AI tools , college essays , or fallacies make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples or go directly to our tools!

• Ad hominem fallacy
• Post hoc fallacy
• Appeal to authority fallacy
• False cause fallacy
• Sunk cost fallacy

College essays

• Choosing Essay Topic
• Write a College Essay
• Write a Diversity Essay
• College Essay Format & Structure
• Comparing and Contrasting in an Essay

 (AI) Tools

• Grammar Checker
• Paraphrasing Tool
• Text Summarizer
• AI Detector
• Plagiarism Checker
• Citation Generator

A thesis statement is a sentence that sums up the central point of your paper or essay . Everything else you write should relate to this key idea.

The thesis statement is essential in any academic essay or research paper for two main reasons:

• It gives your writing direction and focus.
• It gives the reader a concise summary of your main point.

Without a clear thesis statement, an essay can end up rambling and unfocused, leaving your reader unsure of exactly what you want to say.

Follow these four steps to come up with a thesis statement :

• Ask a question about your topic .
• Write your initial answer.
• Develop your answer by including reasons.
• Refine your answer, adding more detail and nuance.

The thesis statement should be placed at the end of your essay introduction .

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

McCombes, S. (2023, August 15). How to Write a Thesis Statement | 4 Steps & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved August 29, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/academic-essay/thesis-statement/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, how to write an essay introduction | 4 steps & examples, how to write topic sentences | 4 steps, examples & purpose, academic paragraph structure | step-by-step guide & examples, get unlimited documents corrected.

✔ Free APA citation check included ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

Self-Driving Vehicles—an Ethical Overview

• December 2021
• Philosophy & Technology 34(1)

• KTH Royal Institute of Technology

• Institute for Futures Studies

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations

• Somaya Hammouda

• Nour Algokhy

• Francesco Braghin

• J VOCAT BEHAV

• J ADV TRANSPORT

• Xiangmo Zhao

• Xinrui Zhang
• Horizon 2020 Commission Expert Group to advise on specific ethical issues raised by driverless mobility (E03659)
• Jean-François Bonnefon

• Darja Vrščaj

• Geert Verbong
• Ethics Inform Tech

• Bryant Walker Smith

• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

Snapsolve any problem by taking a picture. Try it in the Numerade app?

Advertisement

Self-Driving Vehicles—an Ethical Overview

• Research Article
• Open access
• Published: 12 August 2021
• Volume 34 , pages 1383–1408, ( 2021 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Sven Ove Hansson   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0071-3919 1 ,
• Matts-Åke Belin 1 , 2 &
• Björn Lundgren   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5830-3432 3 , 4 , 5  

67k Accesses

38 Citations

32 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

The introduction of self-driving vehicles gives rise to a large number of ethical issues that go beyond the common, extremely narrow, focus on improbable dilemma-like scenarios. This article provides a broad overview of realistic ethical issues related to self-driving vehicles. Some of the major topics covered are as follows: Strong opinions for and against driverless cars may give rise to severe social and political conflicts. A low tolerance for accidents caused by driverless vehicles may delay the introduction of driverless systems that would substantially reduce the risks. Trade-offs will arise between safety and other requirement on the road traffic system. Over-reliance on the swift collision-avoiding reactions of self-driving vehicles can induce people to take dangerous actions, such as stepping out in front of a car, relying on its fast braking. Children travelling alone can violate safety instructions such as the use of seatbelts. Digital information about routes and destinations can be used to convey commercial and political messages to car users. If fast passage can be bought, then socio-economic segregation of road traffic may result. Terrorists and other criminals can hack into a vehicle and make it crash. They can also use self-driving vehicles for instance to carry bombs to their designed places of detonation or to wreak havoc on a country’s road system.

Similar content being viewed by others

Self-driving Cars and the Right to Drive

Autonomous Vehicles: Legal Considerations and Dilemmas

Consideration of the Relationship Between Autonomous Vehicles and Ethics

Explore related subjects.

• Artificial Intelligence
• Medical Ethics

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 Introduction

Self-driving vehicles have been predicted to radically change our patterns of travelling and transportation (Gruel & Stanford, 2016 ; Pernestål & Kristoffersson, 2019 ). Their introduction will be a protracted process involving massive investments in vehicles and infrastructure, as well as changes in ingrained behaviours and attitudes. There will probably be a decades-long period of gradual introduction, in which fully automated operation of road vehicles will only be allowed in limited segments of the road system, such as specially designated highways or highway lanes, and small areas such as parking facilities where velocities will be kept low (Kyriakidis et al., 2019 ).

This will be a momentous technological transformation. It calls for major efforts to anticipate and evaluate social changes that may potentially accompany the introduction of the new technology. As part of these endeavours, ethical and public policy aspects of the technology itself and of various scenarios for its introduction need to be explored (Palm & Hansson, 2006 ). This article presents an overview of plausible challenges and opportunities that can potentially result from the introduction of self-driving (driverless, autonomous) road vehicles. Our purpose is to broaden the discussion from a focus on the crash behaviour of vehicles to the many types of social change that the new technology can be involved in. We have studied the ethical literature on the topic, and reflected on the social and ethical implications of topics brought up in the technical and policy-oriented literature. This search resulted in a fairly extensive (but of necessity not exhaustive) list of issues, many of which do not seem to have been discussed previously in the ethical literature. Footnote 1 In what follows we begin by discussing the changes in responsibility ascriptions that can be expected (“Sect.  2 ”), since such changes will determine much of the ethical framework for the new technology. After that we discuss potential positive and negative reactions to automated vehicles (“Sect.  3 ”) and the trade-offs between safety and other requirements on a new road traffic system (“Sect.  4 ”). We then turn to the important ethical issues that arise from the possibility of external control of autonomous vehicles (“Sect.  5 ”) and from the large amounts of person-related data that will be collected in vehicles and road management systems (“Sect.  6 ”). This is followed by chapters on human health and the environment (“Sect.  7 ”), social and labour market relations (“Sect.  8 ”), and criminality (“Sect.  9 ”). Our conclusions are summarized in “Sect.  10 ”.

2 Responsibility for Safety

Much of the discussion on self-driving vehicles has been concerned with issues of responsibility. In the currently on-going tests on public roads, there is always a person on the driver’s seat, called a “safety driver” or “steward”, who is required to follow the traffic and be prepared to take over control immediately if the need arises. The safety driver has essentially the same legal responsibilities as the driver of a conventional vehicle. However, this is seen as a temporary solution, and the automobile industry aims at releasing the safety driver, so that all occupants of the vehicle can be passengers. Such a step would seem implausible unless and until automatic driving has achieved a markedly higher level of safety than human driving. Possibly, this will first be attained only in certain parts of the road system (e.g. motorways), and fully automatic driving may then initially be allowed only there.

If and when this happens, a radically new situation will arise with respect to responsibility. If there is no driver who controls the vehicle, who is then responsible for the safety of its passengers and of those who travel or walk on the same roads? If a car is “driven” by a computer possessing artificial intelligence, does that intelligence constitute an entity that can be held responsible? What are the responsibilities of the vehicle’s current owner? Its manufacturer? The owner and manager of the road system? The organization running the traffic control centre that the vehicle communicates with?

Even without automatic vehicles, traditional assumptions about responsibilities in road traffic have been subject to change in the last few decades. Traditionally, drivers and others moving on the roads have been taken to carry almost the whole burden of responsibility (Melcher et al., 2015 , p. 2868). Footnote 2 Vision Zero, which was introduced in Sweden 1997 and is now adopted in numerous countries, states, and cities around the world, aims at eliminating all fatalities and serious injuries in road traffic. It puts much more emphasis than previous approaches on the responsibilities of road builders and managers, vehicle manufacturers, and others who contribute to creating and maintaining the traffic system, or use it professionally (Belin et al., 2012 ; Rosencrantz et al., 2007 ). Future changes in responsibility ascriptions will have to be seen in that perspective.

In order to analyse the responsibility issues connected with automated road traffic, we need to distinguish between two fundamentally different types of responsibility, namely, task responsibility and blame responsibility (Dworkin, 1981 ; Goodin, 1987 ; Hansson, 2022 ). Having a task responsibility means to be obliged to do something. Having a blame responsibility means that one is to be blamed if something goes wrong. Blame responsibility is often associated with punishments or with duties to compensate. Blame responsibility is also often called “backwards-looking responsibility”, and task responsibility can be called “forwards-looking responsibility”.

These two major forms of responsibility coincide in many practical situations, but in particular in complex social situations, they can be born by different agents. For instance, suppose that a motorist who drives too fast kills a child crossing a road on its way to school. In the subsequent trial, the driver will be held (blame) responsible for the act. And of course the driver is (task) responsible for not driving dangerously again. But that is not enough. We also need to prevent the same type of accident from happening again, with other drivers. This is not something that the culpable driver can do. Instead, measures are needed in the traffic system. We may have reasons to introduce traffic lights, speed bumps, or perhaps a pedestrian underpass. The task responsibility for these measures falls to decision-makers, such as public authorities. In cases like this, blame and task responsibility part company.

What will happen with our responsibility ascriptions when driverless cars are introduced? One thing should be clear: since the users of fully automated vehicles have no control over the vehicle, other than their choice of a destination, it would be difficult to hold them responsible either for safety (task responsibility) or for accidents (blame responsibility) (Gurney, 2017 ). We do not usually hold people responsible for what they cannot control (King, 2014 ). Footnote 3 There are three major alternatives for what we can do instead. First, we can hold other persons responsible instead. The most obvious candidates are the vehicle manufacturers and the people responsible for the road system (including the communication and coordination systems used to guide the vehicles). The second option is to hold the artificial intelligence built into the vehicles responsible. The third is to treat traffic accidents in the same way as natural accidents such as tsunamis and strokes of lightning, for which no one is held responsible. In Matthias’ ( 2004 ) terminology, this would mean that there is a “responsibility gap” for these accidents. Several authors have warned that self-driving vehicles may come with a responsibility gap (Coeckelbergh, 2016 ; de Jong, 2020 ).

Although the future is always difficult to predict, the first option is by far the most probable one. Previous experience shows that this is how we usually react when a person to whom we assigned responsibility is replaced by an automatic system. For instance, if an aviation accident unfolds after the pilot turned on the autopilot, we do not blame the artificial intelligence that took over the flight, and neither do we treat the failure as a natural event. Instead, we will probably put blame on those who directed the construction, testing, installation, service, and updating of the artificial intelligence. Such an approach is not unknown in road traffic. In the past few decades, proponents of the Vision Zero approach to traffic safety have had some success in achieving an analogous transfer of responsibility to vehicle and road system providers, although human drivers are still in place.

It cannot be excluded that future, perhaps more human-like, artificial agents will be assigned blame or task responsibility in the same way as human agents (Nyholm, 2018a , pp. 1209–1210). However, in the foreseeable future, the systems running our vehicles do not seem to be plausible candidates for being so treated. These will be systems taking and executing orders given to them by humans. There does not seem to be any need for them to express emotions, make self-reflective observations, or exhibit other behaviours that could make us see them as our peers. Footnote 4 It should also be noted that current approaches to automatic driving are predominantly based on pre-programmed response patterns, with little or no scope for autonomous learning. This is typical for safety-critical software. The cases in which it appears to be difficult to assign responsibility for an artificial agent to its creator(s) are those that involve extensive machine learning, which means that the programmers who constructed the software have no chance of predicting its behaviour.

We should therefore assume that for driverless vehicles, the responsibilities now assigned to drivers will for the most part be transferred to the constructors and maintainers of the vehicles and the roads and communication systems on which they depend (Bonnefon et al., 2020 , pp. 53–63; Crane et al., 2017 ; Luetge, 2017 , p. 503; Marchant & Lindor, 2012 ). Footnote 5 This also seems to be what the automobile industry expects to happen (Atiyeh, 2015 ; Nyholm, 2018c ). It will have the interesting consequence that blame responsibility and task responsibility will be more closely aligned with each other since they are carried by the same organization (Nyholm & Smids, 2016 , p. 1284n). The responsibility of manufacturers can either be based on products liability or on some new legal principle, such as Gurney’s ( 2017 ) proposal that in liability cases, the manufacturers of autonomous vehicles should be treated as drivers of those vehicles. Abraham and Rabin ( 2019 ) suggested a new legal concept, “manufacturer enterprise responsibility” that would involve a strict liability compensation system for injuries attributable to autonomous vehicles. Some authors, notably Danaher ( 2016 ) and de Jong ( 2020 ), have put focus on the “retribution gap”, i.e. the lack of mechanisms to identify individual persons that are punishable for a crash caused by an autonomous vehicle. This part of the responsibility gap cannot be so easily filled by a corporate entity as the parts concerning compensation (another part of blame responsibility) of future improvements (task responsibility). However, finding someone to punish is not necessarily as important as compensating victims and reducing the risks of future crashes.

It is much less clear how responsibilities will be assigned in near-automated driving, in which a human in the driver’s seat is constantly prepared to take over control of the vehicle in the case of an emergency (Nyholm, 2018a , p. 1214). However, although this may be adequate for test driving, it is unclear whether the same system can be introduced on a mass scale. Human interventions will tend to be slow, probably often slower than if the human is driving, and such interventions may also worsen rather than improve the outcome of a dangerous situation (Hevelke & Nida-Rümelin, 2015 ; Sparrow & Howard, 2017 , pp. 207–208). It is highly doubtful whether such arrangements satisfy the requirement of “meaningful human control” that is frequently referred to in the AI literature (Mecacci & Santoni de Sio 2020 ). Since meaningful control is a standard criterion for both blame and task responsibility, it is therefore also doubtful whether either type of responsibility can be assigned to a person sitting in the driver’s seat under such conditions (Hevelke & Nida-Rümelin, 2015 ).

3 What Can and Should Be Accepted?

Although the automotive industry and public traffic administrations are planning for automatized road traffic, its introduction will, at least in democracies, ultimately depend on how public attitudes will develop. Some studies indicate that large parts of the population in most countries have a fairly positive attitude to autonomous vehicles (Kyriakidis et al., 2015 ). However, such studies should be interpreted with caution. Not many have any experience of self-driving vehicles, and no one has experience of their large-scale introduction into a traffic system. Furthermore, other studies indicate a less positive attitude (Edmonds, 2019 ).

Public attitudes to accidents involving autonomous vehicles will be important, perhaps decisive, for the introduction of such vehicles in regular traffic. Will we accept the same frequency of serious accidents with self-driving cars as that which is now tolerated for vehicles driven by humans? There are several reasons to believe that we will not. Already today, tolerance for safety-critical vehicle malfunctions is low. Manufacturers recall car models to repair faults with a comparatively low probability of causing an accident. They would probably encounter severe public relations problems if they did not. Previous attempts to limit such recalls to cases when they have a favourable cost–benefit profile have proved disastrous to the manufacturer’s public relations (Smith, 2017 ). The public tends to expect much lower failure rates in vehicle technology than in the behaviour of drivers (Liu et al., 2019 ). This difference is by no means irrational, since technological systems can be constructed to be much more predictable, and in that sense more reliable, than humans. Footnote 6

Another reason to put high demands on the safety features of driverless vehicles is that improvements in technology are much more generalizable than improvements in human behaviour. Suppose that a motorist drives over a child at dusk because of problems with his eyesight. This may be reason enough for him to change his way of driving, or to buy new eyeglasses. If his eyesight cannot be sufficiently improved, it is a reason for authorities to withdraw his driver’s licence. However, all these measures will only affect this particular driver. In contrast, if a similar accident occurs due to some problem with the information processing in an automatized vehicle, then improvements to avoid similar accidents in the future will apply (at least) to all new vehicles of the same type. The fact that a crash with a self-driving vehicles cannot be written off as an exception due to reckless behaviour may also contribute to higher demands on the safety of these vehicles.

In addition to these rational reasons for high safety requirements on driverless vehicles, public attitudes may be influenced by factors such as fear of novelties or a particular revulsion to being killed by a machine. There have already been cases of enraged opponents slashing tyres, throwing rocks, standing in front of a car to stop it, and pointing guns at travellers sitting in a self-driving car, largely due to safety concerns (Cuthbertson, 2018 ). At least one company has left its self-driving test vehicles unmarked in order to avoid sabotage (Connor, 2016 ).

All this can combine to heighten the safety requirements on self-driving vehicles. This was confirmed in a study indicating that self-driving vehicles would have to reduce current traffic fatalities by 75–80% in order to be tolerated by the public in China (Liu et al., 2019 ). Potentially, requirements of safety improvement may turn out to be so high that they delay the introduction of driverless systems even if these systems would in fact substantially reduce the risks. Such delays can be ethically quite problematic (Brooks, 2017a ; Hicks, 2018 , p. 67).

To the extent that future driverless vehicles satisfy such augmented safety requirements, the public’s tolerance of accidents with humanly driven vehicles may be affected. If a much lower accident rate is shown to be possible in automatized road traffic, then demands for safer driving can be expected to gain momentum. This can lead to measures that reduce the risks of conventional driving, such as alcohol interlocks, speed limiters, and advanced driver assistance technologies. Insurance will become more expensive for human-driven than self-driving cars if the former are involved in more accidents. There may also be proposals to exclude human-driven vehicles from parts of the road net, or even to prohibit them altogether. According to Sparrow and Howard ( 2017 , p. 206), when self-driving cars pose a smaller risk to other road-users than what conventional cars do, “then it should be illegal to drive them: at that point human drivers will be the moral equivalent of drunk robots” (Cf. Müller & Gogoll, 2020 ; Nyholm & Smids, 2020 ).

On the other hand, strong negative reactions to driverless cars can be expected to develop in segments of the population. In road traffic as we know it, drivers communicate with each other and with unprotected persons in various informal ways. Drivers show other drivers that they are leaving them space to change lanes, and pedestrians tend to wait for drivers to signal that they have seen them before stepping into the street. Similarly, drivers react to pedestrians showing that they wait for the vehicle to pass (Brooks, 2017a ; b ; Färber, 2015 , p. 143; Färber, 2016 , p. 140). Inability of automatic vehicles to take part, as senders or receivers, in such communications, may give rise to reactions against their presence in the streets. There may also be disapprovals of patterns of movement that differ from the driving styles of most human drivers, such as strictly following speed limits and other traffic laws, and accelerating and decelerating slowly in order to save energy (Nyholm & Smids, 2020 ; Prakken, 2017 ).

Furthermore, negative reactions can have their grounds in worries about the social and psychological effects of dependence on artificial intelligence, or about the uncertainties pertaining to risks of sabotage or large accidents due to a breakdown of the system. There are signs that significant reactions of this nature may arise. According to a study conducted by the American Automobile Association, three out of four Americans are afraid of riding a fully autonomous car (Edmonds, 2019 ). Such attitudes may be connected with other misgivings about a future, more technocentric society. Such reactions should not be underestimated. The experience of genetically modified crops in Europe shows that resistance to new technologies can delay their introduction several decades, despite extensive experience of safe use (Hansson, 2016 ).

Attitudes to automatized road traffic can also be influenced by devotion to the activity of driving. For some people, driving a motor vehicle is an important source of pride and self-fulfilment. The “right to drive a car” is important in their lives (Borenstein et al., 2019 , p. 392; Edensor, 2004 ; Moor, 2016 ). Notably, this does not necessarily involve negativity to mixed traffic, as long as one is allowed to drive oneself, and the “pleasure of driving” is not too much thwarted by the self-driving vehicles and the arrangements made for them. The “Human Driving Manifesto” that was published in 2018 argued explicitly for mixed traffic, claiming that “[t]he same technology that enables self-driving cars will allow humans to retain control within the safe confines of automation” (Roy, 2018 ). However, from an ethical (but perhaps not a political) point of view, the pleasures of driving would tend to be lightweight considerations in comparison with the avoidance of fatalities on the road.

All this adds up to prospects for severe social and political conflicts on the automatization of road traffic. Judging by previous introductions of contested technology, there is a clear risk that this can develop into a trench war between parties with impassioned and uncompromising positions. If driverless cars achieve a much better safety record than conventional vehicles—otherwise their introduction seems unlikely—then proponents will be invigorated by the safety statistics and will see little reason to make concessions that would be costly in terms of human lives. On the other hand, opponents motivated by abhorrence of a more technology dependent society cannot be expected to look for compromises. Dealing with the terms of such an entrenched clash of social ideals may well be the dominant issue of ethical involvement in road traffic automatization. Needless to say, rash and badly prepared introductions of self-driving vehicles could potentially trigger an escalation of such conflicts.

4 Safety and the Trade-Offs of Constructing a Traffic System

In the construction of a new traffic system, safety will be a major concern, and possibly the most discussed aspect in public deliberations. However, there will also be other specifications of what the traffic system should achieve. Just as in the existing traffic system, this will in practice often lead to trade-offs between safety and other objectives. Since safety is an ethical requirement, all such trade-offs have a considerable ethical component. In a new traffic system, they will have to be made with a considerably higher priority for safety than in the current system with its dreadful death toll.

Many of the more specific features of self-driving vehicles, such as short reaction time and abilities to communicate with other vehicles, can be used both to enhance safety and to increase speed. For instance, driving on city roads and other roads with unprotected travellers, such as pedestrians and cyclists, will always be subject to a speed–safety trade-off (Flipse & Puylaert, 2018 , p. 55). With sufficiently low speeds, fatal car–pedestrian collisions can virtually be eradicated. Probably, passengers of driverless vehicles would not tolerate such low speeds. They can also cause annoyance and possibly risky behaviour by the drivers of conventional vehicles. On the other hand, if the tolerance for fatal accidents becomes much lower for self-driving than for humanly driven vehicles (as discussed above), then demands for such low speeds can be expected. As noted by Goodall ( 2016 , pp. 815–816), since fast transportation in city areas is beneficial to many types of businesses, the speed–safety trade-off will be accompanied by an economy–safety trade-off connected with the efficiency of logistics.

Increased separation between pedestrians and motor vehicles can efficiently reduce accident risks. The introduction of inner city zones, similar to pedestrian zones but allowing for automatized vehicles driving at very low speeds and giving way to pedestrians, could possibly solve the safety problem and the need for transportation of goods. However, such zones may not be easily accepted by people who wish to reach city destinations with conventionally driven vehicles. This can lead to an accessibility–safety trade-off.

Self-driving vehicles can drive close to each other in a caravan, where the first vehicle sends out instructions to brake or accelerate, so that these operations are performed simultaneously by the whole row of vehicles. This technology (“platooning”) can significantly reduce congestion and thereby travel time. However, an efficient use of this mechanism will inevitably tend to reduce safety margins (Hasan et al., 2019 ; Hu et al., 2021 ). This will give rise to a speed–safety trade-off, but also to an economy–safety trade-off concerning infrastructure investments.

Even if accidents due to incoordination in fast-moving vehicle caravans will be very unusual, the effects can be enormous. This may place road traffic in a situation more similar to that of civil aviation, whose safety considerations are dominated by rare but potentially very large accidents (Lin, 2015 , p. 80; Lin, 2016 , p. 80). There may then be incentives to limit the number of vehicles in a caravan, and thereby the size of a maximal accident, although such a limitation may not decrease the expected total number of fatalities in these rare accidents. Discussions on such measures will involve a small–vs.–large–accidents trade-off.

Already in today’s traffic system there are large differences in safety between different cars. Important safety features are present in some car models but not in others. Some of these safety features, such as crumple zones, safety cells, and airbags, reduce the severity of the injuries affecting drivers and passengers (crashworthiness). Others, such as driver monitoring systems and anti-lock braking systems, reduce the probability of accidents (crash avoidance). Many of the crash avoidance features that are now installed on human-driven cars can be seen as forerunners of components that will be integrated into fully autonomous driving systems. The efficiency of the total crash avoidance system of self-driving cars will be crucial for the extent to which these vehicles can be introduced into road traffic. Like all other features, those affecting crash avoidance can be expected to differ between car models. New models will expectedly have better crash avoidance systems. Expensive car models may be equipped with better systems than less expensive ones; for instance, they may have better and more costly sensors (Holstein et al., 2018 ).

Currently, our tolerance is in practice fairly high for large differences in the risks that different vehicles expose other road users to, due to variations in equipment as well as in driver skills and behaviour. In many countries, a minimal technical safety level is ensured by compulsory periodic motor vehicle inspections, which include checks of brakes and other basic requirements. However, there are still large differences between vehicle types and models for instance in driver monitoring systems and anti-lock braking systems. In general, new cars have a higher standard than old cars in these respects. Recalls to update old cars to the technical safety standards of new cars are, to our knowledge, not practised anywhere. Footnote 7 Software updates in old vehicles may become a difficult issue, in particular for vehicles that outlive their manufacturing company (Smith, 2014 ). Today, most accidents are ascribed to human failures (Rolison et al., 2018 ). When the majority of crashes are ascribed to vehicle failures, prohibition of inferior vehicle types will be a much more obvious way to improve safety. Doing so will be good for safety, but achieving the higher safety level will be costly. To the extent that the higher costs for safety will prevent people with low incomes from owning motor vehicles, it can also involve an equity–safety trade-off.

The protection of passengers against accident risks will have to be implemented in a new situation in driverless cars. There may no longer be a person present in the vehicle who is responsible for the safety of all passengers. Presumably, this also means that there will no longer be a need for one sober person in the car. We can foresee trade-offs between, on the one hand, passengers’ free choice of activities and behaviour in the vehicle, and on the other hand, the measures required for their safety, in short freedom–safety trade-offs. A car or a bus can be occupied by a company of befuddled daredevils trying to bypass whatever features the vehicle has been equipped with to prevent dangerous behaviour such as leaning out of windows or throwing out objects. The introduction of mechanisms to detect and prevent dangerous behaviour, such as non-belted travel, can be conceived as privacy intrusive, and we then have a privacy–safety trade-off. It should be noted, however, that such mechanisms have an important function for minors travelling alone. Children may easily indulge in unsafe behaviour, such as travelling without a seat belt, and standard anti-paternalist arguments are not applicable to under-age persons. Vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-infrastructure communication can give rise to another privacy–safety trade-off; see “Sect.  6 ”.

Just like human drivers, self-driving vehicles can become involved in traffic situations where an accident cannot be avoided, and a fast reaction is needed in order to reduce its consequences as far as possible. A considerable number of ethics papers have been devoted to cases in which this reaction has to deal with an ethical dilemma, for instance between driving either into two elderly persons or one child. Footnote 8 Such dilemmas are virtually unheard of in the history of human driving. The reason for this is that the dilemmatic situations are extremely rare in practice. In order for such a situation to arise, two unexpected human obstacles will have to be perceived simultaneously and with about the same degree of certainty, so that the (human or artificial) agent’s first reaction will take both into account. Furthermore, there have to be two reasonably controlled options to choose between. As excellently explained by Davnall ( 2020 ), such situations are extremely rare. In almost all situations when a crash is imminent, the most important reaction is to decrease the car’s speed as much as possible in order to reduce its momentum. The choice is therefore between braking maximally without swerving and braking maximally and at the same time swerving. The latter option has severe disadvantages: swerving reduces the efficiency of braking, so that the collision will take place with a larger momentum. Swerving leads to loss of control, so that (in sharp contrast to the unrealistic examples in this literature) the car’s trajectory becomes unpredictable. This can lead to skidding, spinning, and a sideways collision that is not alleviated by the crumple zones at the car’s front. The chances for pedestrians and others to move out of harm’s way are also smaller if the car is spinning and skidding. In summary, the self-driving car “does not face a decision between hitting an object in front of it and hitting an object off to one side. Instead, the decision is better described as being between a controlled manoeuvre—one which can be proven with generality to result in the lowest impact speed of any available option—and a wildly uncontrolled one.” (Davnall, 2020 , pp. 442–443). Due to the physics of braking and crashing, the situation is very much the same for self-driving systems as it is for human drivers. Consequently, the need for including deliberations on this type of dilemmas does not seem to be larger in the programming of automatized vehicles than in driver’s education Footnote 9 (Brooks, 2017a ). Discussions of such dilemmatic situations seem to have been driven by theoretical considerations, rather than by attempts to identify the ethical problems arising in automated road traffic. Footnote 10 The ethical problems of crash avoidance, in particular the speed–safety trade-offs and the other trade-offs described above, will in all probability be much more important and should therefore be at the centre of the ethical discussion.

5 External Control of Driverless Vehicles

We typically think of an automated car as a vehicle following the directions of the human being who instructs it, both concerning the destination and the route. However, it will not be difficult to construct systems in which the decisions by individual drivers can be overridden by the traffic guidance system. In the case of a traffic jam on a particular road section, driverless vehicles can be redirected to uncongested roads. Such automatic redirection will be much more efficient than sending messages to the passengers who will then have to choose whether or not to follow the recommended new route. However, enforced redirection of a vehicle due to congestion may be conceived as an infringement on the freedom of its occupants. It is both possible and desirable to retain a personal choice for the road users in that case.

The ability of emergency service vehicles to reach their destination as quickly as possible is often a matter of life or death. In a fully automatized road traffic system, both the velocity of the blue light vehicles and the safety of other travellers can be substantially increased if all other vehicles on the pertinent roads are kept out of way through external control by the traffic guidance system. In addition, such external control of vehicles can be used for various law enforcement purposes, such as stopping a car at the roadside in order to arrest a traveller or to search for drugs, contraband or stolen goods. It has been predicted that such remote seizure can decrease the risk of deadly violence when a car is stopped by the police (Joh, 2019 , p. 309).

Arguably, this does not differ from what the police already have the authority to do. They can redirect traffic for purposes such as avoiding congestion, and they can stop a vehicle to arrest a driver or passenger or search for objects to be confiscated. If there is continuous electronic communication between the targeted vehicle(s) and a traffic guidance system, then it will be possible to inform the travellers of the reasons for the external interference and the expected consequences for their continued journey. This is a distinct advantage as compared to traditional police action on roads. Furthermore, taking control of a suspect’s vehicle and bringing it to the roadside is a much safer method than traditional high-speed pursuits. Car chases have a yearly death toll of about 100 per year in the USA alone. Between a fourth and half of those killed are innocent bystanders or road users (Hutson et al., 2007 ; Lyneham & Hewitt-Rau, 2013 ; Rice et al., 2015 ). From an ethical point of view, a reduction in these numbers is of course most desirable.

However, as the risks involved in stopping a vehicle become smaller, there may be moves to use the method for many more purposes than what traditional car chases are used for (namely, to capture persons trying to escape law enforcement). For instance, vehicles can be stopped in order to seize foreign nationals without a valid visa, persons suspected of having committed a minor misdemeanour, or a person whose travel destination indicates an intention to violate a restraining order (Holstein et al., 2018 ). The purposes for which law enforcement agencies can take over control of a vehicle, and the procedures for decisions to do so, will therefore have to be determined, based on a balance between the interests of law enforcement and other legitimate interests.

6 Information Handling

The potential advantages of self-driving vehicles can only be realized with well-developed communication systems. Vehicle-to-vehicle (inter-vehicle) communication can be used to avoid crashes and organize platooning. Vehicle-to-road-management communication systems can provide updated local information on traffic and accessibility. Both types of communication can complement the information gathered by the vehicle itself. Information about obstacles ahead can be obtained before they are registered by the car’s own sensors. Furthermore, sensor or sensor interpretation errors can be detected by comparison with information from other cars or from the roadside. If vehicle-to-road-management systems are interconnected on a large scale, then they can also be used for optimizing the traffic flow (van Wyk et al., 2020 ).

However, like all large-scale handling of person-related information, the collection and processing of traffic information can give rise to considerable privacy intrusions (Zimmer, 2005 ). Today, it is still largely possible to travel anonymously. A person who drives a private car does not necessarily leave any electronic traces, and the same applies to someone travelling by collective transportation (unless she pays with a payment card or a personal travel card) or by taxi (unless she pays with a payment card or the taxi has video surveillance).

All this will be different in an automatized traffic system. Self-driving vehicles will depend on geopositioning transponders operating in a highly standardized fashion (Borenstein et al., 2019 , p. 384), and possibly on centralized communication systems that keep track of each vehicle’s planned route and destination (Luetge, 2017 , p. 554). For privately owned cars, this information will be linkable to the owner. It can potentially be accessed by the road manager and by authorities. The situation will be similar for cars that are rented on a short-term or long-term basis. Just as today, companies renting out vehicles for personal use will register the identity of their customers. Furthermore, there will presumably be an incentive to install video surveillance systems in driverless vehicles—in particular buses—in order to deal with potential disturbances.

Geopositioning of persons can be highly sensitive. It can reveal memberships in religious or political organizations, as well as sensitive private relationships. For a member of a cult, a criminal or extreme political organization, disclosure of visits to an organization offering exit counselling can be life-threatening. The disclosure of travel destinations can be equally dangerous for a person who has obtained a new identity, for instance in a witness protection programme or a programme protecting women from harassment by ex-husbands. More generally, freedom to travel without being surveilled—by government, companies, or private persons—is arguably one of the values universally cherished in liberal societies (Sobel, 2014 ).

Geopositioning data can also potentially be used for commercial purposes. Currently, web browsing data on a person’s movements in the virtual space of the internet is used to tailor a massive flow of advertisements (Véliz, 2019 ; Vold & Whittlestone, 2019 ). With geopositioning data, our movements in real space can be used in the same way (Gillespie, 2016 ). Sellers and rental providers of vehicles will have economic incentives to include an advertisement function over which they retain control, so that they can sell space on it. For instance, after a car has been parked outside a timber yard, the owner or renter of the car would receive commercial messages from other construction stores. A (devotional or touristic) visit to a church or a mosque could be followed by messages from proselytizing organizations etc. Political ads could be individualized, based for instance on the combination of past travel and web surfing habits. These commercial messages could be conveyed via loudspeakers or screens in the car, or through other media connected with the person who owns or rents the vehicle. It is not inconceivable that such personalized commercials may become as ineluctable for travellers as the (personalized) commercials are today for the web surfer and the (impersonal) ads for the newspaper reader (King, 2011 ; Svarcas, 2012 ). Car manufacturers are already developing recommender systems that deliver commercial information based on the recipient’s previous behaviour. Such systems can be installed in both human-driven and self-driving cars (Vrščaj et al., 2020 ). In addition, ride-sharing can be tailored, based on personal information for instance from web browsing, which is used to find a suitable travel companion (Moor, 2016 ; Soteropoulos et al., 2019 , p. 46). However, we still have a (political) choice whether we want our real-world movements to be registered and used for such purposes.

A person going by a driverless car may have a destination that is less precise than a specific address, such as “a grocery” or “a place on the way to the final destination where I can buy some flowers”. Such destinations leave open for considerable commercial opportunities of the same types that are currently used on web browsers and social media. The car-traveller can then find herself driven, not to the closest grocery or flower shop, but to a store further away that has paid for being directed to. Travellers can also be offered to stop at places, for instance restaurants, for which they have not expressed any desire. There will be strong incentives for the sellers and renters of vehicles to display such services. But in this case as well, we still have an option to decide (politically) what types of messages our future travels should impose on us.

If the coordination between automatized vehicles is efficient, then the vast majority of accidents will probably result from collisions with cars driven by humans and with unprotected travellers such as pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists, and horseback riders. An obvious solution to this would be for non-autonomous vehicles, pedestrians etc. to carry a transponder that communicates with motor vehicles in order to avoid collisions (Morhart & Biebl, 2011 ). Parents may wish to provide their children with transponders in order to ensure their safety. It is not inconceivable that demands may arise to make transponders mandatory for certain types of vehicles (such as motorcycles), or for persons walking, cycling or horse-riding on particularly dangerous roads. Obviously, personal transponders would give rise to much the same privacy issues as vehicle-bound geopositioning.

7 Effects on Health and the Environment

To the extent that public transportation such as fixed route buses is replaced by self-driving vehicles that are called to the user’s location, there will no longer be a need to walk to and from a bus stop or a train or subway station. Such walks are an important part of the physical exercise performed by large parts of the population. Reducing the amount of exercise from an already suboptimal level can have negative health effects (Sallis et al., 2012 ). This may call for counter-measures, such as making residential areas car-free (Nieuwenhuijsen & Khreis, 2016 ).

The distribution between road traffic and other modes of traffic, in particular aviation and rail-bound traffic, may change due to the introduction of self-driving vehicles, but it is not possible to foresee what direction such changes will take. If road traffic replaces air-trips, then this will have positive environmental and climate effects. If it replaces rail traffic, then the effect may go in the opposite direction.

It seems plausible that self-driving vehicles will have better energy efficiency than vehicles driven by humans (Urmson & Whittaker, 2008 ). It has also been proposed that electric vehicles will be more attractive if they are self-driven so that they can “recharge themselves” when they are not needed (Brown et al., 2014 ). However, it is also plausible that the total mileage will increase (ibid.). The effects of automatized road traffic on the climate and the environment will also depend on several other factors, such as the distribution between privately owned and rentable vehicles (Zhang et al., 2018 ), and the extent of car- and ride-sharing (Fagnant & Kockelman, 2018 ). The introduction of a traffic management system that coordinates travel will make it easier than in the current system to arrange ride-sharing. However, if most of the vehicles continue to be privately owned (or long-time rented), then incentives to ride-sharing may be insufficient, and car travelling may continue to be as inefficient as today in terms of the number of passengers per vehicle. If traffic is mostly organized with cars hired for each occasion, similar to the current taxi system, then large-scale ride-sharing can more easily be organized and made economically attractive. Needless to say, the choice between these alternatives is a policy decision that need not be left to the market. The climate crisis provides strong reasons to support ride-sharing for instance with incentives in the transport fare system (Greenwald & Kornhauser, 2019 ). However, it is doubtful whether improved energy efficiency and increased car- and ride-sharing can outweigh the increased mileage that is expected to follow with the introduction of self-driving vehicles. At any rate, increased use of climate-friendlier modes of transportation, such as trains and bicycles, is necessary to achieve climate objectives.

A routing system for automatized traffic can be constructed to ensure that each vehicle reaches its destination as soon as possible. Alternatively, it can be tailored to achieve energy efficiency. This will mean lower velocities and fewer accelerations and decelerations, and therefore also increased travel time. Policy-makers will have to decide whether to leave this choice to the individual vehicle user (just as the same decision is left to individual drivers in the present system), or to regulate it in some way. Such a regulation can for instance impose a minimal priority to be assigned to energy conservation in all motor vehicles, or it can involve some form of taxation incurring additional costs on energy-inefficient transportation. Probably, platooning will be so energy-efficient that there will be strong reasons for policy-makers to consider the introduction of a unified speed on major highways (Brown et al., 2014 ).

Both road lighting and exterior automotive lighting can be substantially reduced in an automatized road traffic system (Sparrow & Howard, 2017 , p. 212). This will reduce energy consumption, and it will also lead to a reduction in light pollution (Stone et al., 2020 ). No large effects on the noise pollution emitted from each vehicle can be expected, since the noise level depends primarily on the energy source and the type of motor, rather than on whether the vehicle is automatized or conventionally driven. An increase in road traffic, which is a plausible consequence of automation, will lead to increased noise pollution.

8 Social and Labour Market Consequences

The introduction of self-driving vehicles will have important social consequences. Perhaps most obviously, people who cannot travel alone on roads today will be able to do so. Parents may wish to allow children to go alone by a driverless car. This can make it possible for children to visit relatives or friends, or take part in various activities, even when there is no grown-up available who has the time to accompany them (Harb et al., 2018 ). However, traffic situations can arise in which it is not safe for children to travel alone in a self-driving vehicle. Therefore, a regulation setting a minimal age for the oldest person travelling in a driverless vehicle may be required (Gasser, 2015 , pp. 571–572; Gasser, 2016 , pp. 548–549).

The effects for people with disabilities would seem to be more unequivocally positive. Costly adaptations of vehicles can to a large part be dispensed with. A considerable number of people who cannot drive a car will be able to go on their own in a self-driving car (Mladenovic & McPherson, 2016 , p. 1137). This will increase their mobility, and it can potentially have positive effects on their well-being and social connectedness.

On the negative side, an automatized road traffic system makes it possible to introduce new social divisions among travellers. We already have divisions between more and less affordable manners of travelling on-board the same vehicle. However, although those who travel first or business class on trains and airplanes have more legroom, and (on airplanes) receive more drinks and presumably better food, they leave and arrive at the same time. If there is a traffic delay, first class passengers are not sent off in a separate vehicle, leaving the second (or “tourist”) class passengers behind. A road management system will of course ensure the swift passage of emergency vehicles when other vehicles have to travel slowly, but will it also offer swift passage to those who can afford a “first” or “business” option for their travel? There will certainly be economic incentives to provide such services for those who can pay for them (Dietrich & Weisswange, 2019 ; Mladenovic & McPherson, 2016 ). The negative effects on social cohesion and solidarity of such a system should not be underestimated. Fortunately, the choice whether to allow such shortcuts for the prosperous is a political decision yet to be made.

Sensors currently in use tend to be less reliable in detecting dark-skinned than light-skinned pedestrians (Cuthbertson, 2019 ). This will expose dark-skinned pedestrians to higher risks than others. The probable cause of this defect is that too few dark-skinned faces have been included in the training sets used when the sensor software was developed. This is a problem that will urgently have to be eliminated.

New and more comfortable travel opportunities can give rise to changes in the relative attractiveness of different residential districts, possibly with areas further from city centres gaining in attractiveness (Heinrichs, 2015 , pp. 230–231; Heinrichs, 2016 , pp. 223–224; Soteropoulos et al., 2019 , p. 42). There may also be effects on the localization choices of firms, including shops and entertainment facilities. Changes in the use of urban space may have effects on social segregation, which are difficult to foresee but should be at the focus in urban planning.

As in other branches of industry, automatization of the traffic system will lead to a decreased need of personnel. Driving professions such as those of a bus driver, lorry driver or taxi driver will gradually diminish. For instance, it has been estimated that 5 million Americans work at least part time as drivers (Eisenstein, 2017 ). That is about 3% of the workforce. Even a partial and gradual replacement of these jobs by automatized vehicles will require solutions such as training schemes and other forms of labour market policies (Hicks, 2018 , p. 67; Ryan, 2020 ). If such measures are not taken, or are not efficient enough, the result will be unemployment, with its accompanying social problems. Footnote 11 It should be noted that other branches of industry are expected to undergo a similar process at the same time. The labour market effects of automatized road traffic can therefore be seen as part of the much larger question whether and how the labour market can be readjusted at sufficient pace to deal with the effects of artificial intelligence and its attendant automatization (Pavlidou et al., 2011 ).

However, self-driving vehicles may also have a positive effect on the supply side of the labour market. To the extent that travel becomes faster and/or more convenient, workers will be willing to take jobs at larger distance from home, thus facilitating matching on the labour market. Affordable travel opportunities to workplaces can make it possible for underprivileged people to escape poverty (Epting, 2019 , p. 393).

It is highly uncertain what effects the introduction of self-driving cars will have on employment in the automotive industry. A decrease in the number of cars produced would have a negative impact on employment. However, as noted in “Sect.  2 ”, the industry is expected to have a much higher post-production involvement in self-driving than in human-driven cars. This should have positive effects on employment in the automobile industry. However, parts of this effect may be due to a transfer of employments from other branches of industry. Furthermore, the automotive industry is at the same time subject to other developments that affect the size of its labour force, in particular the automatization of its production processes and economic developments in third-world countries that increase the number of potential users and owners of motor vehicles. The total effect of all these developments is uncertain.

9 Criminality

Almost invariably, major social changes give rise to new forms of criminality that threaten human welfare. We have no reason to believe that vehicle automatization will be an exception from this. Four important potential variants of criminality are illegal transportation, unauthorized access to data, sabotage, and new forms of auto theft.

Automated vehicles can be used for illegal transportation tasks, for instance smuggling and the delivery of drugs, stolen goods, and contraband. For law enforcement, this can give rise to new challenges. Police inspection of vehicles with no traveller will be less intrusive than inspection of vehicles containing humans, but privacy concerns will nevertheless have to be taken into account.

The most obvious way to steal data from a vehicle is to hack into its computer system, either by surreptitious physical connection or using its links to other vehicles and to the traffic guidance system (Jafarnejad et al., 2015 ). If the system contains sensitive information, such as geopositioned travel logs, then this information can be used for instance for blackmailing or for arranging an “accident” at a place to which the owner returns regularly. Information about individual travel patterns obtained from hacking of the traffic guidance system can be used in the same ways.

All self-driving vehicles depend on sensor and software technology, both of which are sensitive to manipulation. Physical sensor manipulation can be performed in order to make the vehicle dysfunctional or (worse) to hurt or kill its passengers (Petit & Shladover, 2015 ). The effects of such manipulation (as well as other forms of sensor malfunction) can to a large extent be eliminated with sensor redundancy. By comparing the inputs from several sensors with overlapping functionalities, sensor malfunctioning can be detected.

Software manipulation can be performed for various criminal purposes, for instance to make the vehicle inoperable, to make it crash, or to direct the vehicle to a destination undesired by the passengers, for instance with the intent of frightening or kidnapping travellers (Crane et al., 2017 , pp. 239–251; Jafarnejad et al., 2015 ; Joh, 2019 , p. 313). Such manipulations can be connected with terrorism or organized crime. The prospect of being helplessly driven at high speed to an unknown place would seem to be scary enough to intimidate a witness. The risk of such software manipulation should be taken seriously. In addition to the usual measures to prevent, detect, contain and respond to an attack, vehicles can be provided with an overriding option for passengers to order it to stop at the nearest place where it can be safely parked (Kiss, 2019 ).

Vehicles without passengers can be used for criminal and terrorist attacks, such as driving at high speed into a crowd, or carrying a bomb to a place where it will be detonated (instead of having it carried by a suicide bomber) (Joh, 2019 , pp. 306–307; Ryan, 2020 ). Some such crimes will require software manipulation, which criminals can be expected to perform on vehicles in their own possession. Therefore, systems that detect and report attempts to alter the software will have to be an essential component of the security system (Straub et al., 2017 ).

Software manipulation performed by insiders in the automotive industry is much more difficult to prevent. In the recent diesel emission scandals, prominent motor vehicle industries were capable of illegal manipulation of software, sanctioned on top level in the business hierarchies (Bovens, 2016 ). Since car manufacturers have much to lose from a bad safety record, they do not have an incentive to manipulate software in a way that leads to serious accidents. However, they may have an incentive to manipulate vehicle-to-road-management information in ways that avoid unfavourable reporting to statistical systems based on these communications. Manufacturers working under an authoritarian regime may be ordered to provide exported vehicles with software backdoors that can be used in a potential future conflict to create havoc in another country’s traffic system.

Terrorists or enemy states can hack the traffic guidance system (rather than individual vehicles) in order to sabotage a country’s road traffic. They can for instance stop or redirect transportation of goods, or they can direct targeted vehicles to deadly collisions. This is a serious security problem that requires at least two types of responses. First, traffic guidance systems have to be made as inaccessible as possible to attacks. Secondly, vehicle-to-vehicle communication systems should include warning signals sent out from crashing vehicles, giving rise to crash-avoiding reactions in vehicles in the vicinity.

Automatized cars need to be protected against unauthorized access. Privately owned cars can be equipped with face recognition or other bioidentification systems that only allow certain persons to start a ride (similar systems can exclude unauthorized persons from driving a conventional car, Park et al., 2017 ). Companies renting out self-driving cars will have strong incentives to install identification mechanisms that ensure proper payment and make it possible to trace customers who have done damage to the vehicle. Auto theft may therefore become much more difficult to get away with. This may lead to an increased prevalence of kidnappings with the sole purpose of using the kidnapped person to direct a self-driving car to a desired destination.

In mixed traffic, some roads or lanes may be reserved for driverless vehicles. The traffic on such roads may potentially run at higher speed than the highest speed allowed on roads that are open to conventionally driven cars. Illegal human driving on such roads can give rise to considerable risks, and will therefore have to be strictly forbidden. One potential new form of criminality is driving on such roads, as a form of street racing. There may also be other ways for human drivers to exploit the fast reactions of self-driving vehicles. Safety margins can be transgressed for the thrill of it or in order to pass queues and reach a destination faster (Lin, 2015 , p. 81; Lin, 2016 , p. 81; Sparrow & Howard, 2017 , p. 211). Pedestrians may develop over-reliance on the reactions of self-driving vehicles, and step out in front of a vehicle with an insufficient safety margin, relying on its fast braking (Färber, 2015 , p. 143; Färber, 2016 , p. 138; Loh & Misselhorn, 2019 ). Such over-trust in autonomous systems may offset the safety gains that are obtainable with automated road traffic. Measures against it may run into ethical problems concerning paternalism and intrusiveness.

10 Conclusion

In this final section, we will summarize some of the major ethical issues that require further deliberations.

10.1 Responsibility

The introduction of automated road traffic will give rise to large changes in responsibility ascriptions concerning accidents and traffic safety. Probably, the responsibilities now assigned to drivers will for the most part be transferred to the constructors and maintainers of vehicles, roads, and communication systems.

10.2 Public Attitudes

We can expect a much lower tolerance for crashes caused by driverless vehicles than for crashes attributable to errors by human drivers. Such high safety requirements may postpone the introduction of driverless systems even if these systems in fact substantially reduce the risks.

Public opinion will also be influenced by other issues than safety. Apprehensions about a future society dominated by increasingly autonomous technology can lead to resistance against self-driving vehicles. Such resistance can also be fuelled by aberrant “behaviour” of self-driving cars, and by wishes to retain human driving as a source of pride and self-fulfilment. On the other hand, if human driving coexists with much safer automated traffic, it may be put under pressure to become safer. There may also be proposals to limit human driving or to prohibit it altogether. All this can add up to severe social and political conflicts on automatized road traffic. Rash and badly prepared introductions of self-driving vehicles can potentially lead to an escalation of such conflicts.

10.3 Safety

The short reaction times of self-driving vehicles can be used to enhance safety or to increase speed. A trade-off between safety and speed will have to be struck. This applies to platooning on highways, and also to vehicle movements in the vicinity of pedestrians.

A fully automatic vehicle can carry passengers that could not travel alone in a conventional car, for instance a group of inebriated daredevils, or children unaccompanied by adults. It may then be difficult to ensure safety, for instance that seatbelts are used and that no one leans out of a window.

Over-reliance on the swift collision-avoiding reactions of self-driving cars can induce people to take dangerous actions. Pedestrians may step out in front of a vehicle, relying on its fast braking. Motorists may choose to drive (illegally) on roads or lanes reserved for automatic vehicles.

10.4 Control

The police will probably be able stop a self-driving vehicle by taking control of it electronically. This is much safer than traditional high-speed pursuits. However, the purposes and procedures for decisions to halt a vehicle will have to be based on a balance between the interests of law enforcement and other legitimate interests.

More ominously, criminals can take control over a vehicle in order to make it crash or become inoperable. Terrorists or enemy states can use self-driving vehicles to redirect the transportation of important goods, drive into crowds, carry bombs to their designed places of detonation, or create a general havoc in a country’s road system.

10.5 Information

Extensive information about routes and destinations will have to be collected in order to optimize the movements of self-driving vehicles. Such information can be misused or hacked. It can for instance be used to convey commercial and political messages to car users. An authoritarian state can use it to keep track of the opposition.

The safety of pedestrians, cyclists, and people travelling in conventional motor vehicles can be improved if they carry transponders that keep self-driving vehicles in their vicinity informed of their positions and movements. Such transponders will give rise to the same issues concerning privacy as the transponders in self-driving vehicles.

10.6 Social Justice

Vehicle types and models will differ in their crash avoidance systems, expectedly with newer and more expensive models having the best systems. It will be technically possible to allow cars with better safety features to operate on different places or at higher speeds than other cars. Socio-economic segregation of road traffic can potentially have considerable negative effects on social cohesion.

The need for professional drivers will gradually decrease, and many will lose their employments. This will require solutions such as training schemes and other forms of labour market policies.

In general, the ethical implications of introducing autonomous vehicles are not inherent in the technology itself, but will depend to a large extent on social choices, not least the decisions of law-makers. Choices have to be made for instance on the required level of safety, the distribution of responsibilities between infrastructure providers and vehicle manufacturers and providers, the organization of traffic control, trade-offs between privacy and other interests, and the adjustment of the traffic sector as a whole to climate and environmental policies. It is essential that these decisions be made in the public interest and based on thorough investigations of the issues at hand. There is also an urgent need for further ethical and social research that penetrates the full range of potential issues that the introduction of autonomous vehicles can give rise to, including key ethical issues such as equity, privacy, acceptability of risk, responsibility, and the social mechanisms for dealing with trade-offs and value conflicts.

Availability of Data and Material

This research is based on publicly available texts that are listed in the bibliography.

Code Availability

Not applicable.

For a previous review focusing on crashes with self-driving cars, see Nyholm ( 2018b , c ). For a comprehensive scenario-based treatment, see Ryan ( 2020 ).

Husak ( 2004 ) highlighted the unacceptably high level of risk-taking in the current road traffic system, but laid the responsibility on individual road-users, arguing for instance that trips taken for “frivolous purposes” (p. 352), such as recreational travels by car, are morally objectionable. In contrast, Vision Zero emphasizes the responsibility of those who can transform the traffic system and make it safer.

Hevelke and Nida-Rümelin ( 2015 ) proposed a form of collective (blame) responsibility, shared by all users of fully automated vehicles. However, such shared responsibility can only be implemented through an insurance-based compensation system. It cannot include the possibility of criminal charges. This does not seem to be a plausible way to deal with offences that may potentially include the causation of deaths and serious injuries.

Tigard ( 2020 ) proposed that in cases when a technological system has failed, we can “demand answers from the system itself” and even “hold AI to account by imposing sanctions, correcting undesirable behavioral patterns acquired, and generally seeing that the target of our response works to improve for the future.” Although this may be possible as a purely intellectual venture, it is difficult to see how the emotional components of responsibility ascriptions could be established in relation to software.

Possibly, large companies that rent out cars will take on more extensive responsibilities than private car owners, whether or not these companies are owned by the car industry.

However, it does not follow that machines necessarily perform better in a complex environment where unpredictable disturbances may require reactions that cannot be pre-programmed. Arguably, road traffic is such a complex environment, in particular mixed traffic with both driverless and conventional vehicles.

In Sweden between 1975 and 2007, recycling of older vehicles was rewarded with a bonus. This was primarily for environmental reasons, but the bonus also contributed to the disposal of vehicles lacking modern safety equipment.

See Nyholm ( 2018b , c ) and Davnall ( 2020 , pp. 431–434) for references and systematic reviews of this literature.

The most plausible scenario in which an ethical dilemma could arise seems to be sudden loss of braking power. This is a rare event in human driving and it is not expected to become more common in self-driving vehicles (Davnall 2020 ). The dilemmas that it can give rise to do not seem to be a common topic in drivers’ education.

For further clarifications of the lack of realism of these deliberations, see Gasser ( 2015 , p. 556), Goodall ( 2016 ), Hansson ( 2012 , p. 44), Hern ( 2016 ), Himmelreich ( 2018 ), and Nyholm and Smids ( 2016 ). For a well-articulated contrary view, see Keeling ( 2020 ). Keeling does not take into account the problems with swerving discussed above, and seems to grossly overestimate the frequency of cases with a controlled choice between different ways to crash.

This will not be the case in areas with a large shortage of drivers. Self-driving vehicles have been referred to as a potential solution to driver shortage (Mittal et al., 2018 ).

Abraham, K. S., & Rabin, R. L. (2019). Automated vehicles and manufacturer responsibility for accidents. Virginia Law Review, 105 (1), 127–171.

Google Scholar  

Atiyeh, C. (2015). Volvo will take responsibility if its self-driving cars crash. Car and Driver , October 8. https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a15352720/volvo-will-take-responsibility-if-its-self-driving-cars-crash/ . Accessed 30 July 2021

Belin, M. -Å., Tillgren, P., & Vedung, E. (2012). Vision zero – A road safety policy innovation. International Journal of Injury Control and Safety Promotion, 19 (2), 171–179.

Bonnefon, J.-F., Černý, D., Danaher, J., Devillier, N., Johansson, V., Kovacikova, T., Martens, M., Mladenovic, M. N., Palade, P., Reed, N., de Sio, F. S., Tsinorema, S., Wachter, S., & Zawieska, K. (2020). Ethics of connected and automated vehicles: Recommendations on road safety, privacy, fairness, explainability and responsibility . European Commission. https://doi.org/10.2777/035239

Book   Google Scholar  

Borenstein, J., Herkert, J. R., & Miller, K. W. (2019). Self-driving cars and engineering ethics: The need for a system level analysis. Science and Engineering Ethics, 25 (2), 383–398.

Bovens, L. (2016). The ethics of Dieselgate. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 40 , 262–283.

Brooks, R. (2017a). Unexpected consequences of self driving cars. https://rodneybrooks.com/unexpected-consequences-of-self-driving-cars/ . Accessed 30 July 2021

Brooks, R. (2017b). Edge cases for self driving cars. https://rodneybrooks.com/edge-cases-for-self-driving-cars/ . Accessed 30 July 2021.

Brown, Austin, Gonder, Jeffrey, & Repac, Brittany. (2014). An analysis of possible energy impacts of automated vehicles. In G. Meyer & S. Beiker (Eds.), Road vehicle automation (pp. 137–153). Springer.

Coeckelbergh, M. (2016). Responsibility and the moral phenomenology of using self-driving cars. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 30 (8), 748–757.

Connor, S. (2016). First self-driving cars will be unmarked so that other drivers don’t bully them. The Guardian , October 30.

Crane, D. A., Logue, K. D., & Pilz, B. C. (2017). A survey of legal issues arising from the deployment of autonomous and connected vehicles. Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review, 23 , 191–320.

Cuthbertson, A. (2018). People are slashing tyres and throwing rocks at self-driving cars in Arizona. The Independent , December 13. https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/self-driving-cars-waymo-arizona-chandler-vandalism-tyre-slashing-rocks-a8681806.html . Accessed 30 July 2021

Cuthbertson, A. (2019). Self-driving cars more likely to drive into black people, study claims. The Independent , March 6. https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/self-driving-car-crash-racial-bias-black-people-study-a8810031.html . Accessed 30 July 2021

Danaher, J. (2016). Robots, law and the retribution gap. Ethics and Information Technology, 18 , 299–309.

Davnall, R. (2020). Solving the single-vehicle self-driving car trolley problem using risk theory and vehicle dynamics. Science and Engineering Ethics, 26 , 431–449.

de Jong, R. (2020). The retribution-gap and responsibility-loci related to robots and automated technologies: A reply to Nyholm. Science and Engineering Ethics, 26 (2), 727–735.

Dietrich, M., & Weisswange, T. H. (2019). Distributive justice as an ethical principle for autonomous vehicle behavior beyond hazard scenarios. Ethics and Information Technology, 21 , 227–239.

Dworkin, G. (1981). Voluntary health risks and public policy: Taking risks, assessing responsibility. Hastings Centrer Report, 11 (5), 26–31.

Edensor, T. (2004). Automobility and national identity: Representation, geography and driving practice. Theory, Culture & Society, 21 (4–5), 101120.

Edmonds, E. (2019). Three in four Americans remain afraid of fully self-driving vehicles. AAA Newsroom . https://newsroom.aaa.com/2019/03/americans-fear-self-driving-cars-survey . Accessed 30 July 2021.

Eisenstein, P. A. (2017). Millions of professional drivers will be replaced by self-driving vehicles. NBC News , November 5. https://www.nbcnews.com/business/autos/millions-professional-drivers-will-be-replaced-self-driving-vehicles-n817356 . Accessed 30 July 2021

Epting, S. (2019). Automated vehicles and transportation justice. Philosophy and Technology, 32 (3), 389–403.

Fagnant, D. J., & Kockelman, K. M. (2018). Dynamic ride-sharing and fleet sizing for a system of shared autonomous vehicles in Austin, Texas. Transportation, 45 (1), 143–158.

Färber, Berthold. (2015). Kommunikationsprobleme zwischen autonomen Fahrzeugen und menschlichen Fahrern. In M. Maurer, J. C. Gerdes, B. Lenz, & H. Winner (Eds.), Autonomes Fahren. Technische, rechtliche und gesellschaftliche Aspekte (pp. 127–146). Springer.

Färber, Berthold. (2016). Communication and communication problems between autonomous vehicles and human drivers. In M. Maurer, J. C. Gerdes, B. Lenz, & H. Winner (Eds.), Autonomous driving. Technical, legal and social aspects (pp. 125–144). Springer.

Flipse, S. M., & Puylaert, S. (2018). Organizing a collaborative development of technological design requirements using a constructive dialogue on value profiles: A case in automated vehicle development. Science and Engineering Ethics, 24 (1), 49–72.

Gasser, T. M. (2015). Grundlegende und spezielle Rechtsfragen für autonome Fahrzeuge. In M. Maurer, J. C. Gerdes, B. Lenz, & H. Winner (Eds.), Autonomes Fahren. Technische, rechtliche und gesellschaftliche Aspekte (pp. 543–574). Springer.

Gasser, T. M. (2016). Fundamental and special legal questions for autonomous vehicles. In M. Maurer, J. C. Gerdes, B. Lenz, & H. Winner (Eds.), Autonomous driving. Technical, legal and social aspects (pp. 523–551). Springer.

Gillespie, M. (2016). Shifting automotive landscapes: Privacy and the right to travel in the era of autonomous motor vehicles. Washington University Journal of Law and Policy, 50 , 147–169.

Goodall, N. J. (2016). Away from trolley problems and toward risk management. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 30 (8), 810–821.

Goodin, R. E. (1987). Apportioning responsibilities. Law and Philosophy, 6 , 167–185.

Greenwald, J. M., & Kornhauser, A. (2019). It’s up to us: Policies to improve climate outcomes from automated vehicles. Energy Policy, 127 , 445–451.

Gruel, W., & Stanford, J. M. (2016). Assessing the long-term effects of autonomous vehicles: A speculative approach. Transportation ResearchPprocedia, 13 , 18–29.

Gurney, J. K. (2017). Imputing driverhood. Applying a reasonable driver standard to accidents caused by autonomous vehicles. In P. Lin, K. Abney, & R. Jenkins (Eds.), Robot ethics 2.0: From autonomous cars to artificial intelligence (pp. 51–65). Oxford University Press.

Hansson, S. O. (2012). “A panorama of the philosophy of risk. In S. Roeser, R. Hillerbrand, P. Sandin, & M. Peterson (Eds.), Handbook of risk theory (pp. 27–54). Springer.

Hansson, S. O. (2016). How to be cautious but open to learning: Time to update biotechnology and GMO legislation. Risk Analysis, 36 (8), 1513–1517.

Hansson, S. O. (2022). Responsibility in road traffic. To be published in K. E. Björnberg, S. O. Hansson, M.-Å. Belin, & C. Tingvall (Eds.), Handbook of Vision Zero. Theory, technology and management for a zero casualty policy . Springer.

Harb, M., Xiao, Yu., Circella, G., Mokhtarian, P. L., & Walker, J. L. (2018). Projecting travelers into a world of self-driving vehicles: Estimating travel behavior implications via a naturalistic experiment. Transportation, 45 (6), 1671–1685.

Hasan, S., Balador, A., Girs, S., & Uhlemann, E. (2019). Towards emergency braking as a fail-safe state in platooning: A simulative approach. IEEE 90th Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC2019-Fall).

Heinrichs, D. (2015). Autonomes Fahren und Stadtstruktur. In M. Maurer, J. C. Gerdes, B. Lenz, & H. Winner (Eds.), Autonomes Fahren. Technische, rechtliche und gesellschaftliche Aspekte (pp. 219–239). Springer.

Heinrichs, Dirk. (2016). Autonomous driving and urban land use. In M. Maurer, J. C. Gerdes, B. Lenz, & H. Winner (Eds.), Autonomous driving Technical, legal and social aspects (pp. 213–231). Springer.

Hern, A. (2016). Self-driving cars don’t care about your moral dilemmas. The Guardian , 22 Aug.

Hevelke, A., & Nida-Rümelin, J. (2015). Responsibility for crashes of autonomous vehicles: An ethical analysis. Science and Engineering Ethics, 21 (3), 619–630.

Hicks, D. J. (2018). The safety of autonomous vehicles: Lessons from philosophy of science. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, 37 (1), 62–69.

Himmelreich, J. (2018). Never mind the trolley: The ethics of autonomous vehicles in mundane situations. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 21 (3), 669–684.

Holstein, T., Dodig-Crnkovic, G., & Pelliccione, P. (2018). Ethical and social aspects of self-driving cars. arXiv preprint . https://arxiv.org/pdf/1802.04103.pdf . Accessed 30 July 2021

Hu, M., Zhao, X., Hui, F., Tian, B., Xu, Z., & Zhang, X. (2021). Modeling and analysis on minimum safe distance for platooning vehicles based on field test of communication delay. Journal of Advanced Transportation , article 5543114.

Husak, D. (2004). Vehicles and crashes: Why is this moral issue overlooked? Social Theory and Practice, 30 (3), 351–370.

Hutson, H. R., Rice Jr, P. L., Chana, J. K., Kyriacou, D. N., Chang, Y., & Miller, R. M. (2007). A review of police pursuit fatalities in the United States from 1982–2004. Prehospital Emergency Care, 11 (3), 278–283.

Jafarnejad, S., Codeca, L., Bronzi, W., Frank, R., & Engel, T. (2015). A car hacking experiment: When connectivity meets vulnerability. 2015 IEEE Globecom Workshops .

Joh, E. E. (2019). Automated seizures: Police stops of self-driving cars. New York University Law Review, 94 , 292–314.

Keeling, G. (2020). Why trolley problems matter for the ethics of automated vehicles. Science and Engineering Ethics, 26 (1), 293–307.

King, K. F. (2011). Personal jurisdiction, internet commerce, and privacy: The pervasive legal consequences of modern geolocation technologies. Alabama Law Journal of Science and Technology, 21 , 61–124.

King, M. (2014). Traction without tracing: A (partial) solution for control-based accounts of moral responsibility. European Journal of Philosophy, 22 (3), 463–482.

Kiss, G. (2019). External manipulation recognition modul in self-driving vehicles. In 2019 IEEE 17th international symposium on intelligent systems and informatics (SISY) (pp. 231–234). IEEE.

Kyriakidis, M., Happee, R., & de Winter, J. C. F. (2015). Public opinion on automated driving: Results of an international questionnaire among 5000 respondents. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 32 , 127–140.

Kyriakidis, M., de Winter, J. C. F., Stanton, N., et al. (2019). A human factors perspective on automated driving. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 20 (3), 223–249.

Lin, Patrick. (2015). Why ethics matters for autonomous cars. In M. Maurer, J. C. Gerdes, B. Lenz, & H. Winner (Eds.), Autonomes Fahren. Technische, rechtliche und gesellschaftliche Aspekte (pp. 69–85). Springer.

Lin, Patrick. (2016). Why ethics matters for autonomous cars. In M. Maurer, J. C. Gerdes, B. Lenz, & H. Winner (Eds.), Autonomous driving. Technical, legal and social aspects (pp. 69–85). Springer.

Liu, P., Yang, R., & Zhigang, Xu. (2019). How safe is safe enough for self-driving vehicles? Risk Analysis, 39 (2), 315–325.

Loh, W., & Misselhorn, C. (2019). Autonomous driving and perverse incentives. Philosophy and Technology, 32 , 575–590.

Luetge, C. (2017). The German ethics code for automated and connected driving. Philosophy and Technology, 30 (4), 547–558.

Lyneham, M., & Hewitt-Rau, A. (2013). Motor vehicle pursuit-related fatalities in Australia, 2000–11. Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, 452 , 1.

Marchant, G. E., & Lindor, R. A. (2012). The coming collision between autonomous vehicles and the liability system. Santa Clara Law Review, 52 , 1321–1340.

Matthias, A. (2004). The responsibility gap: Ascribing responsibility for the actions of learning automata. Ethics and Information Technology, 6 (3), 175–183.

Mecacci, G., & de SantoniSio, F. S. (2020). Meaningful human control as reason-responsiveness: The case of dual-mode vehicles. Ethics and Information Technology, 22 , 103–115.

Melcher, V., Rauh, S., Diederichs, F., Widlroither, H., & Bauer, W. (2015). Take-over requests for automated driving. Procedia Manufacturing, 3 , 2867–2873.

Mittal, N., Udayakumar, P. D., Raghuram, G., & Bajaj, N. (2018). The endemic issue of truck driver shortage – A comparative study between India and the United States. Research in Transportation Economics, 71 , 76–84.

Mladenovic, M. N., & McPherson, T. (2016). Engineering social justice into traffic control for self-driving vehicles? Science and Engineering Ethics, 22 (4), 1131–1149.

Moor, R. (2016). What happens to American myth when you take the driver out of it? The self-driving car and the future of the self. Intelligencer , New York Magazine , October 16. http://nymag.com/selectall/2016/10/is-the-self-driving-car-un-american.html . Accessed 30 July 2021.

Morhart, C., & Biebl, E. (2011). High precision distance measurement for pedestrian protection using cooperative sensors. In S. Lindenmeier & R. Weigel (Eds.), Electromagnetics and network theory 89 and their microwave technology applications (pp. 89–104). Springer.

Müller, J. F., & Gogoll, J. (2020). Should manual driving be (eventually) outlawed?  Science and Engineering Ethics, 26 , 1549–1567

Nieuwenhuijsen, M. J., & Khreis, H. (2016). Car free cities: Pathway to healthy urban living. Environment International, 94 , 251–262.

Nyholm, S. (2018a). Attributing agency to automated systems: Reflections on human–robot collaborations and responsibility-loci. Science and Engineering Ethics, 24 (4), 1201–1219.

Nyholm, Sven. (2018b). The ethics of crashes with self-driving cars: A roadmap, I. Philosophy Compass, 13 (7), e12507.

Nyholm, Sven. (2018c). The ethics of crashes with self-driving cars: A roadmap, II. Philosophy Compass, 13 (7), e12506.

Nyholm, S., & Smids, J. (2016). The ethics of accident-algorithms for self-driving cars: An applied trolley problem? Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 19 (5), 1275–1289.

Nyholm, S., & Smids, J. (2020). Automated cars meet human drivers: responsible human-robot coordination and the ethics of mixed traffic. Ethics and Information Technology J, 22 , 335–344.

Palm, E., & Hansson, S. O. (2006). The case for ethical technology assessment (eTA). Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 73 , 543–558.

Park, S.-H., Kim, J.-H., & Jun, M.-S., et al. (2017). A design of secure authentication method with bio-information in the car sharing environment. In J. J. Park (Ed.), Advances in computer science and ubiquitous computing. Lecture notes in electrical engineering 421 (pp. 205–210). Springer.

Pavlidou, N.-E., Tsaliki, P. V., & Vardalachakis, I. N. (2011). Technical change, unemployment and labor skills. International Journal of Social Economics, 38 (7), 595–606.

Pernestål, A., & Kristoffersson, I. (2019). Effects of driverless vehicles–Comparing simulations to get a broader picture. European Journal of Transport & Infrastructure Research, 19 (1), 1–23.

Petit, J., & Shladover, S. E. (2015). Potential cyberattacks on automated vehicles. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 16 (2), 546–556.

Prakken, H. (2017). On the problem of making autonomous vehicles conform to traffic law. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 25 (3), 341–363.

Rice, T. M., Troszak, L., & Gustafson, B. G. (2015). Epidemiology of law enforcement vehicle collisions in the US and California. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 38 (3), 425–435.

Rolison, J. J., Regev, S., Moutari, S., & Feeney, A. (2018). What are the factors that contribute to road accidents? An assessment of law enforcement views, ordinary drivers’ opinions, and road accident records. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 115 , 11–24.

Rosencrantz, H., Edvardsson, K., & Hansson, S. O. (2007). Vision zero – Is it irrational? Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 41 , 559–567.

Roy, A. (2018). This is the human driving manifesto. Driving is a privilege, not a right. Let’s fight to protect it. https://www.thedrive.com/article/18952/this-is-the-human-driving-manifesto . Accessed 30 July 2021

Ryan, M. (2020). The future of transportation: ethical, legal, social and economic impacts of self-driving vehicles in the year 2025. Science and Engineering Ethics, 26 , 1185–1208

Sallis, J. F., Floyd, M. F., Rodríguez, D. A., & Saelens, B. E. (2012). Role of built environments in physical activity, obesity, and cardiovascular disease. Circulation, 125 (5), 729–737.

Smith, B. W. (2014). A legal perspective on three misconceptions in vehicle automation. In G. Meyer & S. Beiker (Eds.), Road vehicle automation (pp. 85–91). Springer.

Smith, B. W. (2017). The trolley and the pinto: Cost-benefit analysis in automated driving and other cyber-physical systems. Texas A&M Law Review, 4, 197–208.

Sobel, R. (2014). The right to travel and privacy: Intersecting fundamental freedoms. The John Marshall Journal of Information Technology and Privacy Law, 30 , 639–666.

Soteropoulos, A., Berger, M., & Ciari, F. (2019). Impacts of automated vehicles on travel behaviour and land use: An international review of modelling studies. Transport Reviews, 39 (1), 29–49.

Sparrow, R., & Howard, M. (2017). When human beings are like drunk robots: Driverless vehicles, ethics, and the future of transport. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 80 , 206–215.

Stone, T., de Sio, F. S., & Vermaas, P. E. (2020). Driving in the dark: Designing autonomous vehicles for reducing light pollution. Science and Engineering Ethics, 26 , 387–403

Straub, J., McMillan, J., Yaniero, B., Schumacher, M., Almosalami, A., Boatey, K., & Hartman, J. (2017). CyberSecurity considerations for an interconnected self-driving car system of systems. In 12th system of systems engineering conference (SoSE). IEEE.

Svarcas, F. (2012). Turning a new leaf: A privacy analysis of Carwings electric vehicle data collection and transmission. Santa Clara Computer and High Technology Law Journal, 29 , 165–197.

Tigard, D. W. (2020). There is no techno-responsibility gap. Philosophy and Technology , published online.

Urmson, C., & Whittaker, W. (2008). Self-driving cars and the urban challenge. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 23 (2), 66–68.

van Wyk, F., Wang, Y., Khojandi, A., & Masoud, N. (2020). Real-time sensor anomaly detection and identification in automated vehicles. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 21 (3), 1264–1276.

Véliz, C. (2019). The internet and privacy. In D. Edmonds (Ed.), Ethics and the contemporary world (pp. 149–159). Routledge.

Vold, K., & Whittlestone, J. (2019). Privacy, autonomy, and personalised targeting: Rethinking how personal data is used. Véliz, C. (Ed.),  Report on data, privacy, and the individual in the digital age . Downloaded May 17, 2020 from https://philpapers.org/archive/VOLPAA-2.pdf . Accessed 30 July 2021

Vrščaj, D., Nyholm, S., & Verbong, G. P. J. (2020). Is tomorrow’s car appealing today? Ethical issues and user attitudes beyond automation. AI and Society, 35 , 1033–1046.

Zhang, W., Guhathakurta, S., & Khalil, E. B. (2018). The impact of private autonomous vehicles on vehicle ownership and unoccupied VMT generation. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 90 , 156–165.

Zimmer, M. (2005). Surveillance, privacy and the ethics of vehicle safety communication technologies. Ethics and Information Technology, 7 (4), 201–210.

Download references

Open access funding provided by The Royal Institute of Technology. This research was supported by funding from the Swedish Transport Administration.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Division of Philosophy, Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), Stockholm, Sweden

Sven Ove Hansson & Matts-Åke Belin

The Swedish Transport Administration, Borlänge, Sweden

Matts-Åke Belin

The Institute for Futures Studies, Stockholm, Sweden

Björn Lundgren

Department of Historical, Philosophical and Religious Studies, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden

Department of Philosophy, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sven Ove Hansson .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Hansson, S.O., Belin, MÅ. & Lundgren, B. Self-Driving Vehicles—an Ethical Overview. Philos. Technol. 34 , 1383–1408 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-021-00464-5

Download citation

Received : 25 September 2020

Accepted : 29 June 2021

Published : 12 August 2021

Issue Date : December 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-021-00464-5

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Self-driving vehicles
• Traffic safety
• Automatization
• Future traffic system
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Driving a Car: The Power, Control, and Responsibility of Being

• Communications