Table 27 - available via license: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International
Content may be subject to copyright.
Source publication
Two complex and conflicting objectives shape altruistic regulation of human activity: maximizing net social good and mitigating incidental individual loss. Eminent domain provides a superficially simple example: To build a road that benefits ten thousand people, a government evicts – and compensates – the ten people whose homes are in the way. But...
Context in source publication
Context 1
... chapter first considers the nature of risk, the nature of regulation, and the challenge of regulating -in a broad sense -the increasing automation of motor vehicles. It then introduces four pairs of potential strategies to respond to this challenge, as summarized in Table 27.1 (above). ...
Similar publications
Casi han pasado quinientos años, y no son pocos, desde que la reina Juana de Castilla y su hijo Carlos I, confirmaran las Ordenanzas del Campo de la ciudad de Calahorra y de su partido judicial, en aquel lejano 1 de diciembre de 1517. El agua, en tanto que recurso imprescindible para la agricultura, el principal motor económico de toda la humanidad...
Citations
... Also, from a social science point of view AM is at the intersection of the "complexity turn" (Urry, 2005) and "mobilities paradigm" (Urry, 2008;Sheller & Urry, 2006) in social studies, as well as influential and emerging theories in the STS field such as action-network theory (ANT) or social construction theory (SCOT). There is also a growing body of literature on the transformational societal bearings of autonomous mobility, discussing the social effects as well as moral and ethical implications of the transition to autonomous mobility as well as economic, security, health, urban planning and policy impacts of "cyberized vehicles" (Sheller, 2004) or "mobility things" (Braun, 2016;Canzler & Knie, 2016;Cohen, 2012;DiClemente, 2014;Knight, 2013;O'Toole, 2014;Walker-Smith, 2015;Hansson, 2015). This paper takes as its starting point a literary approach to social and technology interaction by looking at the first appearance of driverless cars in science-fiction publications at the beginning of the twentieth century. ...
... Both authors' imagination revolves around moral questions: what happens when machines as moral agents make moral decisions, for the better or the worse. Both authors go beyond the current discussions on responsibility and liability or the modern renderings of the "trolley problem" (the ethical model of moral decision-making when a runaway tram may kill one person or five on a railway depending on the choice of the onlooker to alter its way), its variations, moral modelling, moral free riding and its policy implications (Thomson J. J., 1985;Bonnefon, Shariff, & Rahwan, 2016;Goodall, 2014;Foot, 1978;Walker-Smith, 2015). Both authors are concerned with what is today called the interaction of humans and cyber-physical systems and the moral implications thereof. ...
Understanding the confluence of technology and society poses challenges of many kinds. The first appearance of driverless cars in science-fiction publications at the beginning of the twentieth century present techno-social imaginary that is one-dimensional, flat and non-spatial. By highlighting the differences in conceptualizing driverless cars in early sci-fi imagination and today, a spatial understanding of autonomous mobility, influenced by the Mobilities paradigm, the spatial and complexity turns in social sciences, is presented. I argue that the hyper-connectedness of autonomous "mobility things" are transformational to the politics of autonomous mobility therefore they mark the beginning of the end of the "system of automobility". This, in turn, should have bearing on how actual research and innovation as well as policy making is carried out in the realm of autonomous mobility.
Although significantly more organizations have recently invested in Data Analytics (DA), most business users do not execute DA recommendations. Conceptualizing the novel concept of DA recommendation quality, shaped by tool, data and analyst quality, this study draws on the Stimulus-Organism-Response framework to investigate its effect on shaping users’ perceptions of concordance, actionability, and risk, ultimately influencing their DA recommendation execution. The theoretical model is empirically validated using a sample of senior managers across North America. Enriching DA literature, this study shows that DA recommendation quality is positively associated with recommendation execution, while actionability is the dominant factor in increasing it.
For the first time in history, automated vehicles (AVs) are being deployed in populated environments. This unprecedented transformation of our everyday lives demands a significant undertaking: endowing complex autonomous systems with ethically acceptable behavior. We outline how one prominent, ethically relevant component of AVs-driving behavior-is inextricably linked to stakeholders in the technical, regulatory, and social spheres of the field. Whereas humans are presumed (rightly or wrongly) to have the "common sense" to behave ethically in new driving situations beyond a standard driving test, AVs do not (and probably should not) enjoy this presumption. We examine, at a high level, how to test the common sense of an AV. We start by reviewing discussions of "driverless dilemmas," adaptions of the traditional "trolley dilemmas" of philosophy that have sparked discussion on AV ethics but have limited use to the technical and legal spheres. Then, we explain how to substantially change the premises and features of these dilemmas (while preserving their behavioral diagnostic spirit) in order to lay the foundations for a more practical and relevant framework that tests driving common sense as an integral part of road rules testing.
Understanding the confluence of technology and society poses challenges of many kinds. The first appearance of driverless cars in science-fiction publications at the beginning of the twentieth century present a techno-social imaginary that is one-dimensional and non-spatial. By highlighting the complexities of the politics of automobility this chapter argues that these texts offer important insights into the enduring actualities and ethical dilemmas of sustainable transport, looking at them through a lens that owes a good deal to Louis Althusser’s model of the by Ideological State Apparatus. These limitations help to better understand what sorts of connected infrastructures need to be in place if autonomous vehicles are to become a realisable and sustainable transport option.
This paper discusses the role that EU competition law can play in regulating the “new self-employed”—precarious workers formally considered to be micro-enterprises. Specific attention is paid to the newest type of “new self-employed,” namely those engaged via matchmaking platforms arranging for work to be contracted on demand. Despite their unequal bargaining position, self-employed individuals are barred from collective bargaining due to the EU competition rules. This Article argues that the problem will not be solved by modifying the respective tests for “worker” and “undertaking” in EU law, or by introducing exceptions under Article 101 TFEU. This Article then adopts a regulatory approach to canvass the different legal instruments available to address exploitation concerns in the context of the Uber economy, and discusses the role that EU competition law can play in such a regime.
This project envisions an iterative regulatory process for robot governance. A theoretical model represents a step forward in the coordination and alignment of robot and regulatory development. Our work builds on previous literature, and explores modes of alignment and iteration towards greater closeness in the nexus between research and development (R&D) and regulatory appraisal and channeling of robotics’ development. To illustrate practical challenges and solutions, we explore different examples of (related) types of communication processes between robot developers and regulatory bodies. These examples help illuminate the lack of formalization of the policy making process, and the loss of time and resources that the waste of knowledge generated for future robot governance instruments implies. We argue that initiatives that fail to formalize the communication process between different actors and that propose the mere creation of coordinating agencies risk being seriously ineffective. We propose an iterative regulatory process for robot governance, which combines the use of an ex ante robot impact assessment for legal/ethical appraisal, and evaluation settings as data generators, and an ex post legislative evaluation instrument that eases the revision, modification and update of the normative instrument. In all, the model breathes the concept of creating dynamic evidence-based policies that can serve as temporary benchmark for future and/or new uses or robot developments. Our contribution seeks to provide a thoughtful proposal that avoids the current mismatch between existing governmental approaches and what is needed for effective ethical/legal oversight, in the hope that this will inform the policy debate and set the scene for further research.
How should autonomous vehicles (aka self-driving cars) be programmed to behave in the event of an unavoidable accident in which the only choice open is one between causing different damages or losses to different objects or persons? This paper addresses this ethical question starting from the normative principles elaborated in the law to regulate difficult choices in other emergency scenarios. In particular, the paper offers a rational reconstruction of some major principles and norms embedded in the Anglo-American jurisprudence and case law on the “doctrine of necessity”; and assesses which, if any, of these principles and norms can be utilized to find reasonable guidelines for solving the ethical issue of the regulation of the programming of autonomous vehicles in emergency situations. The paper covers the following topics: the distinction between “justification” and “excuse”, the legal prohibition of intentional killing outside self-defence, the incommensurability of goods, and the legal constrains to the use of lethal force set by normative positions: obligations, responsibility, rights, and authority. For each of these principles and constrains the possible application to the programming of autonomous vehicles is discussed. Based on the analysis, some practical suggestions are offered.
Automated driving systems (ADSs) present several challenges to the existing regulatory framework for road vehicles at both the national and the state level. NHTSA has been primarily responsible for automotive safety, and states have been responsible for the regulations that govern vehicle registration and the training, evaluation, and licensing of drivers. Regulatory development has been further complicated by NHTSA's deciding to proceed cautiously and deliberatively, and several state legislatures have pushed for the rapid adoption of state regulations in advance of federal regulations. One of the key challenges in this process has been balancing the need to protect public safety without federal or industry standards, while still encouraging an innovation in technology that could ultimately lead to large improvements in transportation safety, efficiency, and convenience. This paper provides an update on the progress and ongoing challenges in developing regulations for the deployment of ADSs to the public in the state of California. In prior work, the authors postulated that ADS safety would depend on both behavioral competency and functional safety. The focus of this paper is to expand on the method used and the results of the authors' earlier work to establish minimum behavioral competency requirements for ADSs to be deployed on public roads. The behavioral competencies described in this paper provide a starting point for specifying the minimum ADS performance requirements and the testing procedures needed to verify that those requirements have been met.
