Attribution of blame of crash causation across varying levels of vehicle automation

Journal article


Bennett, J., Challinor, K.L., Modesto Ramirez, O. and Prabhakharan, Prasannah. (2020) Attribution of blame of crash causation across varying levels of vehicle automation. Safety Science. 132, pp. 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2020.104968
AuthorsBennett, J., Challinor, K.L., Modesto Ramirez, O. and Prabhakharan, Prasannah
Abstract

Whilst public opinion towards automated vehicles is largely favourable, there are recurrent concerns around responsibility in the event of a crash (Kyriakidis et al., 2015). There is debate about the complexities regarding the legal responsibility of crashes involving automated vehicles, with opinions ranging from the driver is always accountable to the impossibility of holding an ‘automated driver’ responsible. Whilst “who is responsible” for a crash at different levels of vehicle automation has been debated, little is known about public opinion around the attribution of blame in automated vehicle crashes. In order to better understand how these might impact trust and adoption of these technologies, the present study aimed to understand public perceptions of responsibility for crashes involving different levels of automation, and the perceived consequences of that responsibility. A total of 129 undergraduate students, aged between 19 and 61 (M = 24.6, SD = 7.64) read four vignettes which detailed a pedestrian crash scenario with level of vehicle automation being manipulated in each vignette (manual driving, partially automated, highly automated and fully automated driving). Participants were asked three open-ended questions; ‘Where do you assign blame?’, ‘Based on where you assign blame, what course of action would you take from here?’, and ‘How could this event be prevented in the future?’. Results revealed that participants attributed blame to six stakeholder categories (driver, pedestrian, car, government, manufacturer and programmer). As automation increased, the proportion of participants who blamed the driver decreased, whilst those blaming the manufacturer increased. Participants commonly identified legal action against the driver, the manufacturer or both as their course of action. The proportions varied across level of automation, with legal action against the ‘driver’ still identified when the vehicle was fully automated. Furthermore, as level of automation increased, there were increased calls for automation to be reviewed, improved or completely avoided. Overwhelmingly the findings from this study highlight that the public believe that the ultimate responsibility for a crash is in the hands of the human driver, rather than the ‘automated driver’. These findings have implications for the public trust and rates of adoption of automated vehicles. Further it highlights the need for greater governance and legal frameworks around the outcomes of crashes involving automated vehicles.

Keywordsautomated vehicles; accident; autonomous vehicles; liability; self-driving vehicles; responsibility
Year2020
JournalSafety Science
Journal citation132, pp. 1-12
PublisherElsevier
ISSN09257535
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2020.104968
Scopus EID2-s2.0-85089804688
Web address (URL)https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925753520303659
Open accessPublished as ‘gold’ (paid) open access
Publisher's version
File Access Level
Open
Output statusPublished
Publication dates
Print01 Dec 2020
Publication process dates
Deposited17 Mar 2021
ARC Funded ResearchThis output has not been funded, wholly or partially, under the Australian Research Council Act 2001
Permalink -

https://acuresearchbank.acu.edu.au/item/8v927/attribution-of-blame-of-crash-causation-across-varying-levels-of-vehicle-automation

Download files


Publisher's version
  • 6
    total views
  • 6
    total downloads
  • 1
    views this month
  • 2
    downloads this month
These values are for the period from 19th October 2020, when this repository was created.

Export as

Related outputs

Determining fitness to drive for drivers with dementia: A medical practitioner perspective
Bennett, Joanne, Chekaluk, Eugene and Batchelor, Jennifer. (2019) Determining fitness to drive for drivers with dementia: A medical practitioner perspective. Journal of the Australasian College of Road Safety. 30(2), pp. 9 - 17. https://doi.org/10.33492/jacrs-d-18-00276
Post-traumatic stress disorder, depression and anxiety among North Korean refugees: a meta-analysis
Taylor, Benjamin Eric, Chekaluk, Eugene and Bennett, Joanne. (2017) Post-traumatic stress disorder, depression and anxiety among North Korean refugees: a meta-analysis. Psychiatry Investigation. 14(5), pp. 550 - 561. https://doi.org/10.4306/pi.2017.14.5.550
Body size and shape misperception and visual adaptation: An overview of an emerging research paradigm
Challinor, Kirsten L., Mond, Jonathan, Stephen, Ian D., Mitchison, Deborah, Stevenson, Richard J., Hay, Phillipa and Brooks, Kevin R.. (2017) Body size and shape misperception and visual adaptation: An overview of an emerging research paradigm. Journal of International Medical Research. 45(6), pp. 2001 - 2008. https://doi.org/10.1177/0300060517726440
The influence of cast shadows on the detection of three-dimensional curved contour structure
Khuu, Sieu K., Honson, Vanessa J. and Challinor, Kirsten L.. (2016) The influence of cast shadows on the detection of three-dimensional curved contour structure. Perception. 45(4), pp. 425 - 442. https://doi.org/10.1177/0301006615622323
Long-termmortality, remission, criminality and psychiatric comorbidity of heroin dependence: 11-year findings from the Australian Treatment Outcome Study
Teesson, Maree, Marel, Christina, Darke, Shane, Ross, Joanne, Slade, Tim, Burns, Lucy, Lynskey, Michael, Memedovic, Sonja, Bennett, Joanne and Mills, Katherine. (2015) Long-termmortality, remission, criminality and psychiatric comorbidity of heroin dependence: 11-year findings from the Australian Treatment Outcome Study. Addiction. 110(6), pp. 986 - 993. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.12860