Risks associated with the deployment of automated vehicles have to be assessed and addressed and finally weighed against the potential benefits of the technology (Di Fabio et al., 2017). Positive risk balance recognizes that the implementation of automated driving functions is not without potential drawbacks and uncertainties. These may include limitation of the technology, ethical considerations and unforeseen consequences. The overall impact on road safety, reduction of the number of accidents caused by human error and increased accessibility to mobility can create net benefit by the deployment of automated driving systems.
Main Question
Does the ADF achieve a positive risk balance compared to human driving (e.g. reported in accident statistics)?
Sub-Questions
- Is a positive risk balance considered all the way through the life cycle of the ADF?
- Is the baseline and treatment (with ADF) condition properly defined for assessment?
- Are the risks (accidents, accidents of certain severity) of the baseline identified?
- Are the risks induced by the ADF minimised?
- Does the ADF reach a consistent improvement of the overall safety in comparison to human drivers / comparable functions while minimising new risks induced by the automated function?
- Is a (validated) method / tool available to investigate the risk balance?
- Does the ADF avoid unreasonable risks for the vehicle occupants or any other road users?
- Does the ADF not cause any collisions that are reasonably foreseeable and preventable?
References
- Di Fabio, U., Broy, M., Brüngger, R.J., Eichhorn, U. and Grunwald, A. (2017). Ethics commission automated and connected driving. Federal Ministry of Transport and Digital Infrastructure of the Federal Republic of Germany, 1.