The Moral Case for Intelligent Speed Adaptation

Abstract

IntroductionIn this article, I will argue that there is a moral case for setting mandatory speed alerts and speed limiters in all cars. These technologies are fairly intrusive. Nevertheless, my claim is that we should accept these measures in our cars to solve a major problem in road safety: speeding. In 2010, in Europe, more than 30,000 people were killed and 1.4 million were injured in road traffic, with speeding as a major cause. Current enforcement measures work to some extent but are clearly not sufficient. Intelligent Speed Adaptation (ISA) systems are highly effective additional measures to counter speeding. Advisory ISA warns drivers if they transgress the speed limits. Limiting ISA makes speeding impossible, and consequently this technology can prevent up to 50% of fatal accidents. 1 Intelligent Speed Adaptation is indispensable for reducing the risks of car driving to a more acceptable level. Many philosophers uncritically refer to driving as an example of acceptable risk imposition.2 The benefits of car driving are considered to justify the risks involved, which are perceived as being relatively low. Car driving is regarded as a morally acceptable practice from which we all benefit. However, as I will argue below, this view is problematic even with regard to lawful car driving. Moreover, in appealing to car driving as an example of acceptable risk imposition, one fails to appreciate the fact that the practice involves massive transgressions of the rules. Pedestrians, cyclists, and lawful drivers have good reason to reject the risks involved in our actual car driving practice. No tacit consent to the risks of driving can be inferred from individuals' choice to walk, cycle, and drive.

The Ethics of Accident-Algorithms for Self-Driving Cars: an Applied Trolley Problem?

“…These and other difficult questions don't arise if, as is rarely the case, one knows exactly what will happen in different scenarios we might instigate. (Hayenhjelm and Wolff 2012) For some discussion of the acceptability of current driving risks, see (Smids 2015).…”

The European Commission report on ethics of connected and automated vehicles and the future of ethics of transportation

“…It is a bit as if we had an ethical debate about surgical robots without a well-established medical ethics, or an ethical debate on autonomous weapon systems, without an ethics of armed conflicts. 4 To be fair, there do exist some books and many articles discussing important issues in ethics of transportation, especially in relation to justice or fairness (Martens, 2017;Pereira et al, 2017;Van Wee, 2011), and road safety in general (Hansson, 2014;Nihlén Fahlquist, 2009b;Ori, 2014Ori, , 2020Rajan, 2007;Smids, 2018). And some scholars have already made the general suggestion to take ethics of transportation (Hosmer, 1996;Richardson, 1995) or road safety (Nihlén Fahlquist, 2009a;Ori, 2020) more seriously.…”

“…Or, even within industrialised countries, existing technologies that could dramatically improve road safety, e.g. speed limiting technologies, are not compulsory, mainly due to concerns for individual freedom (Smids, 2018). To what extent this preference of individual freedom over public safety is justified, is another example of a very urgent and important ethical and philosophical question, which deserves more attention.…”

The ethics of crashes with self‐driving cars: A roadmap, II

“…This type of reasoning could help to reopen otherwise mostly dormant debates about safety technologies such as speed limiters and alcohol locks in regular cars. There are contributions to the applied ethics literature that present moral arguments in favor of such technologies, such as papers by Jilles Smids (Smids, ) and by Kalle Grill and Jessica Nihlén‐Fahlquist (Grill & Nihlén Fahlquist, ). But on the whole, such technologies – or ways of mitigating traffic‐risks more generally – have not received a great deal of attention within practical ethics.…”