Issue #2: Ethics in Autonomous Vehicles: Real Scenarios 🚗
Navigating the moral maze of self-driving technology in today's world
You're in a self-driving car cruising down a city street when suddenly a child chases a ball into the road directly in your path.
The autonomous vehicle has milliseconds to decide: swerve into the adjacent lane, potentially hitting an oncoming motorcyclist, veer onto the sidewalk where pedestrians are walking, or maintain course and apply maximum braking, risking harm to the child.
What should the car do?
More importantly, who decides what it should do?
This isn't a thought experiment anymore.
These ethical dilemmas have moved from philosophy classrooms to software development labs. As autonomous vehicles transition from research projects to commercial realities, the ethical frameworks guiding their decision-making have become increasingly crucial.
Today's newsletter examines the real-world ethical scenarios autonomous vehicles face, the approaches different companies and countries are taking, and what this means for our shared transportation future.
The Current State of Autonomous Vehicles
Before diving into ethics, let's establish where we stand with autonomous vehicle technology in 2025.
The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) defines six levels of driving automation, from Level 0 (fully manual) to Level 5 (fully autonomous under all conditions).
Despite ambitious predictions made in the late 2010s, truly driverless Level 5 autonomy remains elusive for commercial deployment. Most consumer vehicles currently operate at Level 2 (partial automation) or Level 3 (conditional automation).
As of 2025, here's where the major players stand:
🚘 Waymo (Alphabet/Google): Operating robotaxi services in Phoenix, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Austin at Level 4 autonomy (high automation in specific operational domains). Their vehicles have logged over 50 million autonomous miles on public roads and billions in simulation.
🚘 Tesla: Their Full Self-Driving (FSD) system operates at an advanced Level 2+ or Limited Level 3, requiring driver supervision. Despite the product name, it is not fully autonomous. Tesla vehicles have accumulated billions of miles with Autopilot features engaged.
🚘 GM Cruise: After a significant setback in 2023 when their vehicles experienced operational issues in San Francisco (including a highly publicized incident where a pedestrian was dragged 20 feet after being struck by another vehicle), Cruise has cautiously restarted limited operations with enhanced safety protocols.
🚘 Mercedes-Benz: Became the first automaker to receive international approval for Level 3 automated driving systems with their Drive Pilot system, which can operate under specific conditions at speeds up to 40 mph.
🚘 Baidu's Apollo: Operating robotaxi services in multiple Chinese cities, including Beijing, Shanghai, and Guangzhou, with over 5 million autonomous miles logged.
These systems all face common ethical challenges, though each company approaches them differently.
Real-World Ethical Dilemmas: Beyond the Trolley Problem
The famous "trolley problem" thought experiment (choosing whether to divert a runaway trolley to kill one person instead of five) has dominated early discussions of autonomous vehicle ethics.
However, industry insiders know that real-world ethical dilemmas are both more nuanced and more practical.
Let's examine five real ethical scenarios autonomous vehicles have already encountered or will soon face:
Scenario 1: The Uncertain Pedestrian
The situation: A pedestrian at a crosswalk gives ambiguous signals, beginning to step into the street but then appearing hesitant.
The dilemma: If the vehicle stops unnecessarily, it risks causing rear-end collisions and disrupting traffic flow. If it proceeds when it shouldn't, it risks striking the pedestrian.
Real-world occurrence: In 2018, an Uber test vehicle struck and killed pedestrian Elaine Herzberg in Tempe, Arizona, when she was walking a bicycle across a road outside of a crosswalk. The system classified her variously as an unknown object, a vehicle, and then a bicycle with varying predicted travel paths, contributing to the failure to avoid the collision.
✔️ Current approaches: Modern systems are now programmed with significantly more conservative parameters around pedestrian detection and intent prediction.
For instance, Waymo vehicles now come to a complete stop if there's even a slight possibility of a pedestrian crossing, sometimes creating frustration for human drivers behind them who might have proceeded.
Scenario 2: Sudden Obstruction with Limited Visibility
The situation: An object suddenly appears in the roadway from behind a visual obstruction (like a parked truck).
The dilemma: The vehicle must decide almost instantly how to react to an unidentified object with incomplete information.
Is it a cardboard box that can be safely driven through?
A dangerous piece of metal?
A child?
Real-world occurrence: In May 2016, a Tesla Model S on Autopilot crashed into a tractor-trailer crossing a highway in Florida, killing the driver. The system failed to recognize the white side of the truck against a bright sky, and neither the Autopilot nor the driver applied the brakes. While this wasn’t a case of a sudden obstruction, it revealed a critical limitation of autonomous systems: difficulty in correctly identifying and responding to unusual or unexpected objects in complex environments.
✔️ Current approaches: Most manufacturers now program their vehicles to default to maximum braking when an unidentified object suddenly appears, prioritizing safety over convenience.
Additionally, advanced sensor fusion combines data from cameras, radar, and LiDAR to improve object classification speed and accuracy.
Scenario 3: Law-Breaking vs. Flow of Traffic
The situation: The vehicle is operating in conditions where strict adherence to traffic laws would make it an outlier among human drivers.
The dilemma: Should autonomous vehicles follow traffic laws exactly (e.g., driving exactly at the speed limit) even when this creates potentially dangerous situations with human drivers who are exceeding the limit?
Real-world occurrence: Multiple companies testing in urban environments have documented cases where their law-abiding autonomous vehicles were rear-ended by human drivers when stopping completely at stop signs or driving at exactly the posted speed limit on highways.
✔️ Current approaches: Companies increasingly program "defensive adaptability" into their systems. For instance, Cruise vehicles may drive up to 3 mph over the speed limit when operating in traffic that is moving faster than the legal limit, prioritizing overall traffic safety over strict legal compliance.
Scenario 4: False Positive vs. False Negative Bias
The situation: The vehicle's perception system must balance the risks of false positives (detecting hazards that don't exist) against false negatives (failing to detect real hazards).
The dilemma: Too many false positives result in jarring, unnecessary braking events that can cause passenger injury or rear-end collisions. Too many false negatives risk missing actual obstacles, potentially causing serious accidents.
Real-world occurrence: In February 2022, NHTSA opened a probe into approximately 416,000 Tesla Model 3 and Model Y vehicles from the 2021–2022 model years after receiving 354 complaints about unexpected braking while using Autopilot or adaptive cruise control.
By May 2022, the number of complaints had risen to over 750. These sudden decelerations, occurring without apparent obstacles, posed safety risks, especially at highway speeds. While the investigation began in 2022, it continued into subsequent years, reflecting ongoing concerns about the issue.
✔️ Current approaches: Companies use extensive simulation and real-world testing to tune their detection thresholds. Most now err significantly toward false positives (stopping unnecessarily) rather than risking false negatives (failing to stop when needed), though this balance varies by company and operational domain.
Scenario 5: Vulnerable Road User Prioritization
The situation: In complex traffic scenarios, the autonomous system must decide which road users receive priority when planning its movements.
The dilemma:
Should a cyclist moving unpredictably receive a larger safety buffer than a predictably moving car?
Should elderly pedestrians be given more time to clear intersections than younger, faster-moving ones?
Should the system try to identify potentially intoxicated pedestrians and give them a wider berth?
Real-world occurrence: During the 2021 Tokyo Paralympic Games, a Toyota e-Palette autonomous shuttle, operating within the Paralympic Village, struck a visually impaired athlete at low speed. Although the vehicle was under manual control at the time, the incident highlighted the challenges autonomous systems—and their human overseers—face in safely navigating environments with vulnerable pedestrians, especially those with disabilities.
Toyota temporarily suspended the service and acknowledged the need for better integration between vehicle sensors, human awareness, and accessibility needs.
✔️ Current approaches: Most systems now implement a hierarchical protection system that gives the highest priority to vulnerable road users (pedestrians, cyclists, etc.), regardless of whether they're following traffic rules.
However, manufacturers differ significantly in exactly how they prioritize different types of road users and behaviors.
How Different Companies Approach Ethical Programming
While the industry faces common ethical dilemmas, companies have taken notably different approaches to addressing them:
1. Tesla's Utilitarian Approach
Tesla's approach emphasizes rapid, real-world deployment with iterative improvement based on data gathered from its consumer fleet.
Their ethical framework appears largely utilitarian, focused on maximizing safety across their entire fleet rather than guaranteeing optimal behavior in every edge case.
Elon Musk has repeatedly stated that Tesla's automated systems need only be "much safer than a human" to justify deployment, even if they occasionally make mistakes.
This approach has allowed Tesla to accumulate billions of miles of real-world driving data, but has also resulted in high-profile accidents.
Tesla's FSD (Supervised) software update process demonstrates this philosophy—each new version is first deployed to a small group of testers, then gradually rolled out to the broader customer base as data confirms improved performance.
This creates an ethical question itself: Are early-access customers functioning as unwitting test subjects for unproven technology?
2. Waymo's Safety-First Conservatism
In stark contrast to Tesla, Waymo has taken an extraordinarily cautious approach to deployment. Their vehicles are programmed with safety as the absolute priority, sometimes at the expense of operational smoothness.
Waymo vehicles have become known for occasionally excessive caution, such as refusing to proceed through certain complex intersections or coming to complete stops when detecting distant pedestrians who show no intention of crossing.
Their ethical framework could be described as risk-minimizing deontological, following strict safety rules regardless of efficiency consequences.
This approach has resulted in an impressive safety record—over 50 million miles without a fatality—but has also led to criticism about operational timidity. Waymo vehicles are occasionally mocked for creating traffic disruptions through over-cautious behavior.
3. Mercedes-Benz's Passenger-Priority Programming
When Mercedes-Benz received approval for their Level 3 Drive Pilot system, they made headlines by explicitly stating that their vehicles would prioritize passenger safety over all other road users if forced to choose.
This controversial position—essentially programming the car to protect its occupants, potentially at the expense of others—reflects a different ethical calculation.
Mercedes has argued that this approach is most consistent with how human drivers behave and that anything else would create unrealistic moral expectations for machines that aren't imposed on humans.
This approach raises profound questions about consumer rights, liability, and whether allowing manufacturers to implement such varied ethical frameworks serves the public interest.
4. GM Cruise's Community Engagement Model
Following their operational pause in 2023, GM Cruise has pioneered a community engagement approach to ethical decision-making.
Before redeploying their vehicles, they established community advisory boards in each operational city, incorporating local feedback into their programming decisions.
For example, in San Francisco, after community input highlighted concerns about autonomous vehicle behavior around emergency vehicles, Cruise implemented enhanced detection and response protocols specifically for emergencies, going beyond minimum regulatory requirements.
This model suggests that ethical frameworks for autonomous vehicles might need to be locally calibrated rather than universally applied, accounting for regional differences in driving culture, infrastructure, and community priorities.
Regulatory Approaches Around the World
The ethical frameworks governing autonomous vehicles aren't determined solely by manufacturers.
Regulatory bodies worldwide are creating varied approaches to oversight:
🇪🇺 European Union: Ethics by Design
The EU has taken perhaps the most proactive regulatory stance on autonomous vehicle ethics.
The European Commission's Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy AI specifically address autonomous vehicles, requiring "ethics by design" in AV development.
Germany became the first country to create legal guidelines for autonomous vehicle ethics, directly inspired by recommendations from an ethics commission established by the Federal Ministry of Transport and Digital Infrastructure.
These regulations include principles such as:
Human life always takes priority over property or animal life
In unavoidable accident situations, any distinction between individuals based on personal features (age, gender, etc.) is prohibited
The party responsible for creating risks (i.e., those choosing to deploy autonomous vehicles) bears responsibility for resulting damages
These regulations effectively prohibit certain utilitarian calculus (e.g., sacrificing one person to save many) in German autonomous vehicles.
🇺🇸 United States: State-Level Experimentation
The U.S. has taken a more fragmented approach, with oversight divided between federal agencies like NHTSA and individual state regulations.
This has created a patchwork of requirements:
California requires detailed disclosure of "disengagements" (when human safety drivers must take control) and accidents, making this data publicly available.
Arizona initially took a hands-off approach to encourage innovation, but implemented stricter oversight following the 2018 Uber fatality.
Florida passed legislation explicitly allowing fully autonomous vehicles without human safety drivers, provided they meet insurance requirements.
This regulatory diversity has led to companies "jurisdiction shopping" for testing locations with favorable oversight.
Critics argue this creates a "race to the bottom" for safety standards, while proponents suggest it allows for regulatory experimentation to determine optimal approaches.
🇨🇳 China: Centralized Coordination
China has implemented a nationally coordinated approach through its New Generation Artificial Intelligence Development Plan.
This includes standardized ethical requirements for autonomous vehicles coupled with extensive government support for technology development.
Chinese regulations emphasize social harmony and collective benefit over individual rights, with requirements that autonomous systems be designed to promote "core socialist values."
This includes explicit ethical programming requirements for handling scenarios involving elderly people, children, and other vulnerable groups.
In practice, this has meant autonomous vehicle testing in China operates under closer government supervision but with more consistent rules across regions, allowing companies like Baidu to deploy rapidly across multiple cities once approved.
Real-World Ethics in Action: Case Studies
Let's examine three recent real-world cases that illustrate how ethical decisions are currently being made:
Case Study 1: Waymo's Double-Parked Truck Dilemma
🚨 Situation: In January 2024, a Waymo robotaxi in Chinatown encountered an alleyway blocked by a double-parked delivery truck. The vehicle repeatedly attempted to navigate the alley but ultimately required human assistance to reroute. Additionally, in April 2024, a Waymo robotaxi was observed driving on the wrong side of a San Francisco street to avoid a potential collision, highlighting the complexities autonomous vehicles face in urban environments.
✅ Ethical dimension: The vehicle needs to decide between three options:
Wait indefinitely behind the truck (inconveniencing passengers but maximizing safety)
Cross the center line to go around the truck (violating traffic law, but completing the journey)
Attempt a complex K-turn to find an alternate route (potentially creating traffic disruption)
👉 Outcome: The Waymo vehicle waited behind the parked truck for approximately 8 minutes before a remote human operator authorized it to carefully cross the center line when there was a sufficient gap in oncoming traffic.
💡 Takeaway: This incident revealed the limitations of current autonomous systems in balancing passenger convenience, traffic law compliance, and general traffic flow, and the continued need for human judgment in edge cases.
Following this and similar incidents, Waymo updated its systems to better handle double-parking scenarios, demonstrating the iterative improvement of ethical decision-making systems.
Case Study 2: Tesla's Emergency Vehicle Detection
🚨 Situation: Between 2018 and 2021, there were multiple incidents of Tesla vehicles on Autopilot colliding with stationary emergency vehicles, leading to an NHTSA investigation covering approximately 765,000 vehicles.
✅Ethical dimension: These incidents highlighted a specific edge case in Tesla's system—difficulty in detecting stationary vehicles with flashing lights on roadsides.
This revealed an ethical question about deployment: Is it acceptable to deploy a system with known limitations that performs well in most scenarios but has specific, identifiable weaknesses?
👉 Outcome: In response to the investigation, Tesla issued software updates to improve emergency vehicle detection. Data from subsequent years shows significant improvement, though not perfect performance.
NHTSA ultimately determined that the updates adequately addressed the immediate safety concern.
💡 Takeaway: This case illustrates the ethical challenges of iterative improvement in deployed systems.
Tesla's approach of releasing systems with known limitations and improving them through real-world data collection presents both benefits (rapid improvement) and risks (real-world incidents during the learning process).
Case Study 3: Mercedes Drive Pilot Highway Debris Response
🚨 Situation: During certification testing in Germany in 2022, a Mercedes vehicle equipped with Drive Pilot encountered unexpected debris on the highway—a large piece of tire tread from a truck. (not publicly documented).
✅Ethical dimension: The system had to make a rapid classification of the object and determine whether to:
Swerve to avoid the debris (potentially creating risk to adjacent vehicles)
Attempt to straddle or drive over the debris (risking vehicle damage)
Brake suddenly (creating potential rear-end collision risk)
👉 Outcome: The Drive Pilot system maintained lane position while applying moderate braking, ultimately striking the debris at reduced speed.
This caused minor vehicle damage but no injuries or secondary collisions.
💡 Takeaway: Post-incident analysis determined that the system had correctly prioritized overall traffic safety over vehicle protection.
Mercedes engineers cited this as an example of their "safety first, but pragmatic" approach—avoiding sudden movements that could endanger others, even when it meant accepting minor vehicle damage.
Beyond the Vehicle: Infrastructure and Communication Ethics
The ethics of autonomous driving extend beyond individual vehicle decision-making to include questions about infrastructure design and vehicle-to-everything (V2X) communication:
1. Ethical Data Sharing
Autonomous vehicles collect enormous amounts of data about public spaces and people.
How this data is shared between companies and governments creates significant ethical questions:
Should companies be required to share safety-critical data with competitors to improve overall traffic safety?
Who owns data about public spaces collected by private vehicles?
How should privacy be protected while still allowing beneficial data use?
Recent developments suggest an emerging consensus toward controlled data sharing.
For example, the Autonomous Vehicle Computing Consortium now facilitates anonymized incident data sharing between competitors specifically for safety improvements.
2. Infrastructure Investment Equity
The deployment of autonomous vehicle supporting infrastructure raises important equity questions:
Should special infrastructure investments be made first in wealthy areas (where early adoption is likely) or in underserved areas (where transportation needs may be greater)?
Who bears the cost of infrastructure upgrades needed to optimize autonomous vehicle performance?
Will autonomous vehicles primarily serve those who already have good transportation options?
The U.S. Department of Transportation's 2023 guidance on autonomous vehicle infrastructure explicitly addresses equity concerns, requiring that federally funded projects demonstrate plans for equitable deployment across different community types.
3. Digital Divides and Accessibility
Autonomous vehicles promise enhanced mobility for currently underserved populations, particularly the elderly and disabled.
However, most current implementations require smartphone apps, credit cards, and technical literacy:
What obligations do autonomous service providers have to ensure accessibility?
Should there be mandated alternatives to smartphone-based access?
How can autonomous services be made available to unbanked populations?
Waymo's "Waymo Accessible" program represents one approach to these challenges, developing specialized vehicles with wheelchair securing systems and alternative interfaces for visually impaired users.
However, these specialized adaptations remain limited compared to mainstream deployment.
The Role of Public Opinion and Cultural Values
Ethical frameworks for autonomous vehicles don't develop in a vacuum—they're shaped by public perception and cultural values that vary significantly worldwide:
🗣️ Cultural Differences in Risk Tolerance
Research by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Moral Machine experiment, which collected 40 million decisions from users in 233 countries, revealed striking cultural differences in how people would program autonomous vehicles:
Respondents in individualistic cultures (North America, Europe) showed stronger preferences for protecting young people over the elderly
Collectivist cultures (China, Japan) showed less age-based preference but stronger tendencies to protect higher social status.
Countries with stronger rule of law showed stronger preferences for vehicles that protect pedestrians by following traffic rules
These variations suggest that a single global ethical framework for autonomous vehicles may be neither feasible nor desirable—different societies may legitimately prefer different prioritization schemes based on their values.
🗣️ Public Acceptance Thresholds
Survey data consistently shows that public acceptance of autonomous vehicles requires them to be significantly safer than human drivers, not merely equivalent:
A 2022 study published in Nature found that respondents across cultures expected autonomous vehicles to be at least twice as safe as human drivers before supporting widespread deployment
However, acceptance thresholds varied considerably based on how statistics were presented (lives saved vs. accidents caused)
Acceptance was significantly higher when people believed they would have override capability
These findings suggest that the ethical question of "how safe is safe enough?" has different answers depending on context and framing, and that public acceptance may require performance well beyond human driver capabilities.
🗣️ Media Coverage Effects
Media coverage of autonomous vehicle incidents has created distorted perceptions of risk:
Despite their statistical rarity, autonomous vehicle accidents receive approximately 4.1 times more media coverage than comparable human-caused accidents
Coverage tends to attribute agency and blame to autonomous systems ("self-driving car kills pedestrian") more directly than to human drivers ("accident occurred")
High-profile incidents create outsized effects on public perception and regulatory response
This disproportionate coverage creates ethical challenges for deployment, even if autonomous vehicles are demonstrably safer overall, individual incidents may create perception crises that halt progress.
Emerging Ethical Questions
As autonomous vehicle technology continues to develop, new ethical frontiers are emerging:
❓ Remote Intervention Ethics
Many autonomous vehicle companies maintain remote operation centers where human operators can take control of vehicles in challenging situations.
This creates new ethical questions:
What are the proper limits of remote operator authority?
Should passengers be informed when remote operation occurs?
How should companies handle situations where connectivity issues prevent remote assistance?
The industry has yet to develop consistent standards for these questions, though companies like Cruise and Waymo have begun publishing transparency reports detailing remote intervention rates.
❓ Algorithmic Transparency vs. Proprietary Technology
Autonomous vehicle decision-making involves complex machine learning systems that can be difficult to interpret, creating tension between demands for algorithmic transparency and companies' proprietary technology.
Should companies be required to make their decision-making algorithms explainable to regulators and the public?
How can proprietary technology be protected while still enabling meaningful oversight?
Who should have the authority to audit AI decision-making systems in autonomous vehicles?
In Europe, the AI Act specifically addresses autonomous vehicles, requiring certain levels of explainability for high-risk AI systems, potentially creating different standards than in other markets.
❓ Human Autonomy and Choice
As autonomous capabilities increase, questions arise about the appropriate balance between automation and human control:
Should humans always have override capability, even if this occasionally results in worse outcomes?
Should autonomous vehicles be allowed to prevent certain human actions (like speeding or running red lights) even when the human demands it?
How should systems handle apparent conflicts between stated human instructions and human safety?
Mercedes-Benz's approach to their Level 3 system offers one perspective—allowing human override but documenting when drivers take control, potentially shifting liability back to the human operator.
Today's Action Steps
Engaging with Autonomous Vehicle Ethics: Whether you're an industry professional, policymaker, or concerned citizen, here are three practical steps you can take to engage meaningfully with autonomous vehicle ethics:
1. Participate in Public Comment Periods
Why: Regulatory frameworks for autonomous vehicles are still developing, and public input genuinely shapes outcomes.
How:
Monitor the Federal Register (federalregister.gov) for open comment periods on autonomous vehicle regulations
Subscribe to transportation advocacy organizations that track regulatory developments
Prepare substantive comments that address specific ethical concerns or priorities
Share your lived experience, particularly if you belong to a group potentially affected by autonomous deployment (mobility-impaired, elderly, etc)
Subscribe to PromptWired 😉
Recent public comment periods have resulted in meaningful changes to proposed regulations, such as strengthened data reporting requirements for autonomous vehicle crashes following public input to NHTSA.
2. Engage with Local Deployment
Why: Many of the most important decisions about autonomous vehicles are happening at the local level as cities determine testing and deployment policies.
How:
Attend city council meetings when autonomous vehicle permits are being discussed
Participate in community advisory boards established by autonomous vehicle companies
Document and report autonomous vehicle behavior in your neighborhood
Advocate for deployment equity in underserved communities
Cities like San Francisco and Phoenix have established formal mechanisms for community input on autonomous vehicle operations—engagement through these channels has directly influenced operational domains and hours.
3. Become an Informed Consumer
Why: As autonomous features become standard in consumer vehicles, your purchasing and usage decisions shape market development.
How:
Research the specific capabilities and limitations of autonomous features when purchasing vehicles
Understand the data collection and sharing policies associated with autonomous features
Provide feedback to manufacturers about ethical concerns and preferences
Use autonomous features as designed rather than attempting to circumvent safety limitations
Consumer behavior—both purchasing decisions and how autonomous features are used—sends powerful signals to manufacturers about acceptable ethical frameworks.
The Future Landscape: Where We're Headed
Looking ahead, several trends are likely to shape autonomous vehicle ethics in the coming years:
1. Ethical Differentiation as Marketing
As Level 3 and 4 systems become more common, we're likely to see companies explicitly marketing their ethical frameworks as differentiators.
Some manufacturers may emphasize passenger protection while others focus on community safety or environmental benefits.
This ethical positioning will likely create new consumer segments based on values alignment rather than just traditional factors like performance or luxury.
2. Context-Specific Ethical Programming
Rather than implementing single ethical frameworks, future vehicles will likely adapt their ethical priorities based on context:
School zones might trigger heightened pedestrian protection protocols
Highway driving might balance efficiency with safety differently than urban environments
Weather conditions might shift risk calculations and behavior models
This contextual adaptation will allow more nuanced ethical frameworks but will also create challenges for consistent behavior prediction by other road users.
3. Democratic Input on Ethical Parameters
Several jurisdictions are exploring mechanisms for community input into autonomous vehicle ethical frameworks.
Massachusetts is piloting a "citizen jury" approach where representative community panels review and approve ethical parameters for vehicles operating in their communities.
This democratization of ethical decision-making could help address concerns about corporate control over public safety decisions, but raises questions about technical feasibility and regional consistency.
4. Integration with Smart City Infrastructure
As cities deploy more connected infrastructure, autonomous vehicle ethics will increasingly involve coordination with city systems:
Traffic signals may communicate priority needs (emergency vehicles, pedestrian surges) directly to autonomous vehicles
Cities may establish dynamic ethical zones where different priorities apply at different times
Infrastructure sensors may supplement vehicle sensors for enhanced decision-making
This vehicle-to-infrastructure communication will enable more sophisticated ethical frameworks that incorporate broader community needs beyond immediate road conditions.
5. Ethics of Decommissioning Human Driving
Perhaps the most profound ethical question on the horizon is when, not if, human driving might be restricted in certain contexts:
Should human driving eventually be prohibited on certain roads if autonomous vehicles demonstrate significantly better safety records?
How should society balance individual freedom to drive against the collective safety benefits of automation?
What accommodations should exist for those who prefer or need human driving options?
These questions will likely become increasingly pressing as autonomous safety records improve and the contrast with human driver performance grows more stark.
Join the Conversation
This newsletter is just the beginning of a deeper exploration.
I'm fascinated by how autonomous vehicle ethics intersect with broader questions of AI ethics, public policy, and cultural values.
I'd love to hear your thoughts:
What ethical considerations most concern you about autonomous vehicles?
How should we balance innovation with safety in deployment?
What role should public input have in determining ethical frameworks?
Reply directly to this email with your thoughts, or join our social media community where we're continuing this discussion with experts and interested citizens worldwide.
Next week, we'll be exploring another dimension of AI ethics: facial recognition in public spaces and the balance between security and privacy.
Until then, stay vigilant.
Issa Slee.
🚨 Special Announcement:
Virtual Public Forum on Autonomous Vehicle Ethics
I’m excited to be moderating an upcoming online forum exploring the ethics of autonomous mobility—open to attendees worldwide!
🛣️ "Roads of Tomorrow: Ethical Crossroads in Autonomous Mobility"
Join us for a 2-hour virtual event featuring:
✅ Presentations from leading autonomous vehicle companies on their ethical frameworks
✅ A panel discussion with ethicists, regulators, and safety advocates
✅ Live audience Q&A
✅ Virtual demos of cutting-edge AV technology
📅 Date & Time: To Be Announced
💻 Location: Online (Zoom or YouTube Live)
🎟️ Free to attend — registration required. Limited to 500 participants.
👉 [Learn More & Register Here]
Support PromptWired
Did you find value in today's deep dive?
PromptWired is an independent publication dedicated to bringing you thoughtful, evidence-based analysis of how AI is transforming transportation and other critical infrastructure.
Your support makes this work possible.
I spend countless hours researching, interviewing industry insiders, attending regulatory hearings, and testing autonomous systems to bring you insights you won't find elsewhere.
If you'd like to support this work, consider contributing to Ko-Fi.
Even the price of a coffee helps cover reporting expenses, research costs, and allows me to continue providing this newsletter without paywalls or intrusive advertising.
Your support isn't just about keeping the lights on—it's an investment in independent, critical analysis at the intersection of technology and public interest.
Every contribution allows me to remain free from corporate influence while digging deeper into the ethical questions that will shape our transportation future.
For readers who have already supported this work: thank you. Your generosity is what makes rigorous, independent coverage possible in a landscape often dominated by corporate narratives and hype cycles.
PromptWired is a publication exploring how artificial intelligence is transforming critical infrastructure, public systems, and more. If you found this issue valuable, please consider sharing it with colleagues concerned about the ethical dimensions of autonomous technology.