**6. Self-driving cars and ethical issues**

The path to automated/driverless cars began before 2000 with the introduction of cruise control and antilock brakes. Since 2000, new safety features such as electronic stability control, blind spot detection and collision and lane shift warnings have become available in vehicles. Further, since 2016, automation has moved towards partial autonomy, with features that enable drivers to stay in lane, along with adaptive cruise control technology, and the ability to self-park.

Automated driving systems are defined as systems that control longitudinal and lateral motions of the vehicle at the same time [51]. Self-driving cars use a combination of sensors, cameras, radar and artificial intelligence (AI) to travel between destinations without a human operator. The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) has defined six levels of driving assistance technology (level 0–5) [52].

• No automation

*Security and Privacy From a Legal, Ethical, and Technical Perspective*

(4) improper or no turn signals [46].

conditions perceived as safe and/or comfortable [44].

• On motorways and complex road layouts

• Avoid long journeys (fatigue/tiredness)

obstructive sleep apnoea, and vision disorders [50].

**5.4 Driver self-regulation**

ing situations/conditions:

• In the dark

• In bad weather

• In heavy traffic

• In new areas

regulate [47].

**5.5 Driving cessation**

A recent study has identified the prevalent driving errors of older adults [45]. Following a systematic review of the literature, the authors categorised the prevalent driving errors into eight categories: (1) decision-making, (2) direction and lane control, (3) lack of regulation compliance and awareness, (4) speed performance, (5) visual checking and physical control, (6) recognising and responding to signs, (7) recognising and responding to traffic lights and (8) skills involved in turning and parking. It was found that (2) direction and lane control, (1) decision-making, (7) recognising and responding to signs, and (5) visual checking and physical control were most frequent as prevalent issues for older drivers [45]. Certain unsafe driving behaviours increased in frequency as age, with drivers of 40 years or over—older people more likely to engage in driving behaviours such as (1) little or no sign of attempts to avoid dangerous driving situations, (2) lack of attention to other people and cars, (3) improper manoeuvring around curves and

Self-regulation and/or compensatory behaviour of older adults is defined in relation to the tendency of older adults to minimise driving under conditions that are threatening and/or cause discomfort and conversely, to restrict their driving to

Compensatory behaviour of older adults includes avoiding driving in the follow-

As stated in the Eldersafe Report (2016), older road users need to be aware, acknowledge and have insight into their functional impairments in order to self-

Health deterioration is the primary trigger/key determinant for driving cessation among older adults [48]. Medical conditions either (1) impact the fitness to drive of older drivers and/or (2) an older person's perceived fitness to drive (i.e. attitude, confidence levels, etc.). Several medical conditions and associated impairments are more prevalent in the older adult population and are, therefore, associated with ageing. These medical conditions can potentially impact the crash risk of older road users [49]. Specifically, a systematic review of the literature by Marshall identified specific conditions including: alcohol abuse and dependence, cardiovascular disease, cerebrovascular disease/TBI, depression, dementia, diabetes mellitus, epilepsy, use of certain medications, musculoskeletal disorders, schizophrenia,

**24**


In addition, BASt [53] and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) [13] have defined equivalent standards.

Many automotive companies are developing and/or testing driverless cars. This includes Audi, BMW, Ford, General Motors, Tesla, Volkswagen and Volvo. Solutions are also being advanced by Google and Uber. As of 2019, a number of car manufacturers have reached Level 3 [54]. This level involves an automated driving system (ADS) which can perform all driving tasks under certain circumstances, such as parking the car. In these circumstances, the human driver must be ready to re-take control and is still required to be the main driver of the vehicle [54]. According to the Vienna Convention on Road Traffic (2017), as of 2017, automated driving technologies will be explicitly allowed in traffic, provided that these technologies are in conformity with the United Nations vehicle regulations or can be overridden or switched off by the driver [55].

As noted earlier, technology innovation influences societal values and raises ethical questions. As posed by BMVI, how much dependence on technologically complex systems will the public accept to achieve, in return for increased safety, mobility and convenience [56]? In relation to the advancement of assisted driving solutions, Gasser distinguishes four clusters of issues, (1) legal issues, (2) functional safety issues, (3) societal issues (including issues of user acceptability) and (4) human machine interaction (HMI) issues [53]. A recent literature review on the ethical, legal and social implications of the development, implementation, and maturation of connected and autonomous vehicles (CATV) in the United States groups the issues into the following themes: privacy, security, licensing, insurance and liability, infrastructure and mixed automation environment, economic impact, workforce disruption, system failure/takeover, safety algorithm and programming ethics, and environmental impact [57].

Largely, the literature around ethics and driverless cars appears to focus on a subset of important ethical issues. This includes issues pertaining to (1) addressing conflict dilemmas on the road, (2) privacy and protecting personal sphere, (3) minimising technology misuse and (4) the digital self and transhuman rights. In relation to (1) operational decisions have moral consequences. The issue of managing conflict dilemmas on the road poses significant challenges for autonomous vehicles. As outlined in the literature, operational decision making raises many serious questions in terms of how human life is valued. Equally, such solutions raise significant ethical questions in terms of data privacy and the sharing of sensitive/private information about a person's health condition and potential driving risk. The possibility of technology hacking is also a potential threat to the implementation of this technology. Further, issues around defining rights in the context of the augmented self (i.e. the mix of human rights and rights as apply to our digital self which is enabled/ transformed by the reach of artificial technology) are real. As argued by some, we may have to devise a set of ethics that applies to the whole continuum of our digital self and identity. Potentially, the specification of a Universal Declaration of Transhuman Rights should underpin the development of these technologies. Data gathered in a recent cross-national acceptability surveys concerning driverless vehicles indicates that the above issues are also a significant public concern [58, 59].

These are of course important both ethical and societal issues. However, the literature and public debate tends to avoid other significant issues. This includes issues pertaining to (4) the purpose and intended use of this technology, (5) issues around the role of the person/driver (including older adult drivers) and (6) the potential negative consequences of this technology, including the social consequences of this technology and its impact on well-being.
