INDIVIDUAL PROJECT

Investigation and development of

computational methods to aid
autonomous driving

Name Naresh Krishna Gopikrishnan

Registration IP904(SP)

Supervised by Dr. Stephen Prior

Year 2014-2015

Background and Rationale

My acute interest in automobiles lead me to choose this specific topic. The issue currently with
autonomous cars is not the handling of human/environmental interference but rather the question of who
to blame in case of any damages involving a robot car and a living person. Every researcher/engineer
looking into the field somehow stop at asking all the right questions and never give a realistic solution.

There exists a straightforward argument in the subject of machine ethics in implementing robot
cars which is based on Philippa Foots Trolley Problem1. The already conflicting answers to
this problem only raises more questions such as, Who takes the decision? the car or the
human? who writes the software? [1], which just complicates the subject. Although a research
paper strongly says that the designers of the algorithms responsible should, as far as possible,
leave ethical issues to users, and when this is not possible, the ethical assumptions in the
algorithm should at least be transparent and easy to identify by users.[2], emergency driving
decisions would have to be taken swiftly and most of the time doesnt allow enough time for
permission/alerts from the driver/passenger.

Essentially the answer to the problem is an algorithm that gives us a choice between murder and
failure to render assistance. But how would this look in practice? Would you like to enter your car
and set it up for "murder mode"[3]?
Not only will my Individual Research Project be a valued addition to the existing research and
development but will also work on finding practical and varying solutions to either resolve or avoid the
conflict. The basic premise of this project is to find solution(s) with legal, technical and ethical reasoning
by gathering all the expansive information from several dierent sources and methods.

Goals

With this project, I plan to gather all the legal knowledge to judge and categorise every
possible road accident scenario. Then I intend to create several critical examples and
choices a human would could physically make for the same with supporting information
which will be amassed .

I will then draft the dierent legal and financial consequences/liabilities and create an
aggregation of values that would help in a simulative assessment using a software.

Using the results, I will formulate algorithms to provide utilitarian solutions dierent cases and
simultaneously create a universal procedure that could be used. I will repeatedly test the
algorithm under varying extreme conditions for authentication.

From these case solutions, one general process will be chosen which raises minimum legal
and ethical questions and design/formulate a workaround/law specifically for self-driving cars
for the ones those exist which if passed should render autonomous cars safe on public
roads.

I will then construct robot(s) prototype in order to attempt to prove my concept and formulate
other uses to extend this concept/procedure in the real-world.

Subject Content
Robot ethics is one of the more controversial topics. It is more than a set of inflexible rules. Its
behaviour depends on context and a number of environmental factors. It's most likely that
advanced "ethical" robots will not come about by developing some sort of hardwired ethical
system, but instead will come from"the development of robots that can better communicate and
negotiate with the people they encounter to reach mutually agreeable outcomes. [4]
Then there exist Asimovs Laws, also known as The Three Laws of Robotics. They are a set of
formulated by the science fiction author Isaac Asimov.
The Three Laws are:

A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to
harm.

A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such
would conflict with the First Law.

orders

A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the
First or Second Law.[5]
Asimov developed these laws, not as proposal for a rule-based robot code of ethics, but as a
literary device to demonstrate the defects in such a system. Robots are extremely literal and do
not possess any sort of common sense. For such a system to follow commands based on just
three rules will lead to varied problems.
For example, the first rule forbids a self-driving car to let a human come to harm. A literal
interpretation of this rule would prohibit sudden braking, even to avoid a collision, because it
would result in a whiplash for the passengers. For a much more basic instance, a robot surgeon
will not be able to make the first incision for a live saving surgery. There exist infinite novel
scenarios and modelling the rules to suit each and every one of them is a vain task. [6]

Notable Researchers and Work

The most indulged of the researchers on solving this case is Patrick Lin, an Aliate Scholar and
the director of the Ethics + Emerging Sciences Group. He has written several papers and news
articles which outline every basic complication in the realisation of robot cars. He was the first
researcher to propose the use of pre-defined ethics settings in cars which the user could
choose based on his/her preference and denied the practicality of the feature on the same
paper.
Another valued researcher in the field is Noah Goodall. As an established research scientist at
the University of Virginia in the Transportation Research department. His journal report titled
'Ethical Decision Making During Automated Vehicle Crashes is one of the few specific articles
which includes several statistical data and discusses some deduces various real life methods to
tackle the problem of autonomous vehicle collisions.

Proposed Methodology
For this report I will be using a combination of Qualitative and Quantitative research
methodologies to triangulate hypotheses/options considering dierent data. The data will be
collected at an early stage of the project to ensure the reflection of all the opinions from the initial
part of the project.
The Qualitative research technique will mainly include interviews with open questions to elicit a
varied answer but it will only be sent to valued and established members of the research world.
The responses from the interview will be deeply considered in the direction and output the
research would later be producing. There is a high probability that I would not receive responses
from a lot of the invitees due to several reasons but an initial conversation with supporting
information on what I am doing as a part of this research should give them enough incentive to
answer the questions list when I do send them a little later.
The Quantitative research method will employ the use of questionnaires with closed questions,
preferably multiple choice, and primarily be used to gather statistical data and a general
consensus to support the existing facts in the research. The surveys will be circulated through
easy-to-use online pages and physical circulation in lectures/classes. Using the data in a later
phase would be easier in the former case but the latter ensures more feedback because of the
environment it is performed under, although it has to be entered in a computer manually.

appendix
1 Trolley Problem
There is a runaway trolley barrelling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five
people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing
some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a
different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one person on the side track. You do not
have the ability to operate the lever in a way that would cause the trolley to derail without loss of
life (for example, holding the lever in an intermediate position so that the trolley goes between the
two sets of tracks, or pulling the lever after the front wheels pass the switch, but before the rear
wheels do). You have two options: (1) Do nothing, and the trolley kills the five people on the main
track. (2) Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person. Which
is the correct choice?

Bibliography

1.

Hutton, P., Automated Vehicles, in A Thinking Aloud, A. Dunoyer, et al., Editors. 2014:
Thinking HIghways.

2.

Felicitas Kraemer, K.v.O.a.M.P., Is there an ethics of algorithms? 2010.

3.

Angler, M.W., The Ethics Of Algorithms: Whom Would You Run Over? 2013.

4.

Love, D. A Simple Experiment Shows How Hard It Is To Get Robots To Behave Ethically.
2014 [cited 2014 September 27, 2014]; Available from: http://
www.businessinsider.com/ethical-robots-elevator-experiment-2014-4.

5.

Asimov, I., I, Robot. 1940: Super Science Stories.

6.

Goodall, N.J., Ethical Decision Making During Automated Vehicle Crashes. 2014.

Further References

Podcasts and Online Multimedia

7.

Thurn, S., Google's Driverless Car, in TED Talks. 2011.

8.

Open Robotics Initiative., Should People Without Licenses Be Allowed To 'Drive'

Autonomous Cars?, G. Dvorsky, Editor. 2014.

9.

Young, N., Autonomous car ethics, in Spark, N.Y.a.N. Goodall, Editor.

10. Millar, J., Robot Car Ethics, in Robot Car Ethics, J. Millar, Editor. 2014.
11. Google, Stop sign no longer a problem. 2014.

Patents
12. Zhu; Jiajun; (Sunnyvale, C.F.D.I.S.F., CA) ; Dolgov; Dmitri A.; (Mountain View, CA), SYSTEM
AND METHOD FOR PREDICTING BEHAVIORS OF DETECTED OBJECTS, USPTO,
Editor. 2011: The United States of America.
13. Prada Gomez; Luis Ricardo (Hayward, C., Fairfield; Nathaniel (Mountain View, CA),
Szybalski; Andy (San Francisco, CA), Nemec; Philip (San Jose, CA), Urmson; Christopher
(Mountain View, CA), Transitioning a mixed-mode vehicle to autonomous mode, USPTO,
Editor. 2011: The United Sates of America.

14. Montemerlo; Michael Steven; (Mountain View, C.D.D.A.M.V., CA) ; Urmson; Christopher
Paul; (Mountain View, CA), ZONE DRIVING, USPTO, Editor. 2011: The United States of
America.
15. Fairfield; Nathaniel; (Mountain View, C.U.C.M.V., CA) ; Thrun; Sebastian; (Palo Alto, CA),
TRAFFIC SIGNAL MAPPING AND DETECTION, USPTO, Editor. 2010: The United States
of America.
16. Dolgov; Dmitri A.; (Mountain View, C.U.C.P.M.V., CA), DIAGNOSIS AND REPAIR FOR
AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES, USPTO, Editor. 2011: The United States of America.
17. Alberto Broggi, G.S., Christopher K. Yakes, Vision system for an autonomous vehicle,
USPTO, Editor. 2007: The United States of America.

Books, Magazine and Journal Articles

18. Gopnik, A., A Point of View: The ethics of the driverless car, in BBC News. 2014.
19. Davies, A. The Technology For Self-Driving Cars Is Ready Here's What It Will Take To
Get Them On The Road. 2013 [cited 2014 June 21]; Available from: http://
www.businessinsider.com/challenges-of-self-driving-cars-2013-8.
20. Nida-Rumelin, A.H.a.J., Responsibility for Crashes of Autonomous Vehicles: An Ethical
Analysis. 2014.
21. Cronin, B., Vehicle-to-Infrastructure (V2I) Communications for Safety. 2014, Intelligent
Transportation Systems Joint Program Oce.
22. Cronin, B., Vehicle-to-Vehicle (V2V) Communications for Safety. 2014, ITS Joint Program
Oce.
23. Smith, B.W., Automated Vehicles Are Probably Legal In The United States. 2012.
24. Suarez, D., The kill decision shouldn't belong to a robot. 2013.
25. Mackworth, D.P.a.A., Artificial Intelligence; Foudations Of Computational Agents. 2010:
Cambridge University Press.
26. Reguly, E. Driverless cars are possible, but not desirable. 2014 [cited 2014 September
21, 2014]; Available from: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/
international-business/driverless-cars-are-possible-but-not-desirable/article20585553/.
27. Elkind, E., Could self-driving cars help the environment? 2012, The Berkeley Blog.
28. Palodichuk, F.D.a.S.A., Criminal Liability Issues Created by Autonomous Vehicles. 2012,
Santa Clara Law Review.
29. Marcus, G., Moral Machines, in The New Yorker. 2012.

30. Beiker, G.M.a.S., Road Vehicle Automation. 2014: Springer.

31. Yeomans, G., Handing Over Control: Opportunities and Risks for Insurance. 2014, Lloyd's.
32. Stewart, J. Google is to start building its own self-driving cars. 2014 [cited 2014 21st
June]; Available from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-27587558.
33. Newman, J., How to Make Driverless Cars Behave, in TIME. 2014.
34. Newman, J., Uber CEO Would Replace Drivers With Self-Driving Cars, in TIME. 2014.
35. Villasenor, J., Products Liability and Driverless Cars. The Robots Are Coming: The Project
On Civilian Robots, 2014.
36. Jose Santa , A.F.G.-S., Marc Sanchez-Artigas, Architecture and evaluation of a unified
V2V and V2I communication system based on cellular networks. 2007.
37. Stock, K. The Problem With Self-Driving Cars: They Don't Cry. 2014 [cited 2014 June 30];
Available from: http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-04-03/the-problem-withself-driving-cars-they-dont-cry.
38. Holehouse, M. Google's driverless cars to be allowed on roads after ministers rewrite
Highway Code. 2014 [cited 2014 June 21]; Available from: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/
motoring/news/10885236/Googles-driverless-cars-to-be-allowed-on-roads-afterministers-rewrite-Highway-Code.html.
39. Cherubini, M. Ethical Autonomous Vehicles. 2012.
40. Goodall, N.J., Machine Ethics and Automated Vehicles. 2014.
41. Lin, P. The Ethics of Autonomous Cars. 2013 [cited 2014 June 30, 2014]; Available from:
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/10/the-ethics-of-autonomous-cars/
280360/.
42. Lin, P. The Ethics of Saving Lives With Autonomous Cars Is Far Murkier Than You Think.
2013 [cited 2014 20th August, 2014]; Available from: http://www.wired.com/2013/07/
the-surprising-ethics-of-robot-cars/.
43. Lin, P. Ethics settings on autonomous cars a 'thoughtless mindset'. 2014 [cited 2014 28
August, 2014]; Available from: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-08/19/
terrible-idea-robot-car-ethics.
44. Patrick Lin, K.A.a.G.A.B., Robot Ethics: The Ethical and Social Implications of Robotics.
2011: MIT Press. 400.
45. Crowe, P. V2V And V2I As Seen By Toyota. 2014 [cited 2014 June 22]; Available from:
http://www.hybridcars.com/v2v-and-v2i-as-seen-by-toyota/.
46. Engineering, P., 8 Questions, in Professional Engineering. 2014. p. 18-19.

47. Brandom, R. Self-driving cars can navigate the road, but can they navigate the law? 2012
[cited 2014 June 23]; Available from: http://www.theverge.com/2012/12/14/3766218/
self-driving-cars-google-volvo-law.
48. Kilcarr, S. New challenges face V2V and V2I connection eorts. 2014 [cited 2014 June
21]; Available from: http://fleetowner.com/blog/new-challenges-face-v2v-and-v2iconnection-eorts.
49. Shook, H.B., Driverless vehicles: liability and new automotive technologies. 2013, In-house
Lawyer.
50. Shankland, S. US to push for mandatory car-to-car wireless communications. 2014 [cited
2014 June 22]; Available from: http://www.cnet.com/news/us-to-push-for-mandatorycar-to-car-wireless-communications/.
51. Annaswamy, T.S.a.A.M., Vehicle-to-Vechicle/Vehicle-to-Infrastruture Control. The Impact of
Control Technology, 2011.
52. Chatfield, T., When is it ethical to hand our decisions over to machines? And when is
external automation a step too far?, in Aeon. 2014.
53. Goodwin, W.C.a.A. Six reasons to love, or loathe, autonomous cars. 2013 [cited 2014
June , 2014]; Available from: http://www.cnet.com/news/six-reasons-to-love-or-loatheautonomous-cars/.
54. Knight, W. Proceed with Caution toward the Self-Driving Car. 2013 [cited 2014 June 23];
Available from: http://www.technologyreview.com/review/513531/proceed-with-cautiontoward-the-self-driving-car/.

Gantt Chart

Title

Effort
Sep
2014

1) Initial project research and data collection

2w

2) Investigation

2w

2.1) Ciritical legal and ethical investigation

1w

2.2) Technical investigation

1w

3) Distribute surveys and conduct interview

4) Interim Report
5) Christmas vacation
6) Assemble and relate information
7) Virtual Simulation

2w
4w 2d
3w 0.25h
1w
12w 4d
7.5h

7.1) Formulate solutions on paper

3w

7.2) Computer Simulation

6w

7.3) Easter vacation

8) Physical Simulation

3w 4d
7.5h
10w

8.1) Procure components for physical simulation

2w

8.2) Gather information on testing techniques

2w

8.3) Assemble the prototype

2w

8.4) Testing

2w

8.5) Buffer period

2w

9) Final Report and Submission

7w

9.1) Writing the final report

3w

9.2) Prepare presentation

3w

9.3) Preparing poster

1w

Oct 2014

Nov 2014

Dec 2014

Jan 2015

Feb 2015

Mar 2015

Apr 2015

May 201

Mind Map

Components?

Cost

What is the best micro

controller to use?

Physical Simulation

Computer simulation and

Development of a universal

testing

algorithm for the real-world

TIme
Thorough investigation of all
Ethical Information

ethical confusions/
misconceptions

What is needed to

Restrictions

prevent/resolve issues?
Legal Information

Advantages / Freedoms

Prospect of new statutes to

support the cause

Can we implement it only for

the people who need it? eg.

Is it necessary?

Autonomous car crashes

blind, elderly etc.

Key Issues

Possibility of new methods /

Who is to blame?

advances

Why/ How does it happen?

Immediate questions and steps
to be taken

Printed and Published

Open question interviews

Feasibility, Modularity and

Security
Concepts from Articles,
Journals, Film etc.

material

Surveys and Questionnaires

Technology

Information gathering of
current findings