The AV Blame Game

Assigning blame does not make roads safer. Rather, blaming is most commonly used to evade responsibility for mitigating a safety problem.

The blame game is played by AV companies when they
find some reason – any reason will do – for an AV crash that is not the fault
of the AV itself. Candidates for blame include
the safety driver, drivers of other vehicles, jaywalking pedestrians, and
possibly unexpected conditions. A cousin of the blame game is claiming that the
AV acted in a lawful manner even if doing so was clearly inappropriate for the
situation. At a deeper level, the blame game is an extension of the tactic of
blaming human drivers for being imperfect to deflect attention away from operational
flaws with AVs.

The reality is that placing blame does not make
streets safer. Driving involves a continual stream of social interactions with
other drivers in which, hopefully, most drivers follow most of the rules most
of the time. Importantly, drivers are expected to compensate for mistakes and any
lack of rule following by other drivers to the degree they can.

For every AV crash in which the AV design team
insists some other party should be blamed, an essential follow-up question is
whether the AV could have done something to avoid the crash, even if that
something is not strictly required by the rules of the road. Any generally
useful response that might have avoided the crash should be added to the AV
behavioral repertoire even if not strictly required by law.

As a hypothetical example, when encountering a
wrong-way driver it is likely better for an AV to pull to the side of the road
than to continue driving in-lane until impact. This is the case even though the
AV has right of way, and might be fully justified by the rules of the road in
continuing to drive in its lane right into the impending crash. At worst,
pulling to the side of the road reduces the relative impact speed. At best an
impact is avoided as the other vehicle continues driving the wrong way in the
travel lane. And who knows – it is possible that the AV itself was the vehicle
going in the wrong direction due to a mapping error or other issue.
Blaming the other vehicle for wrong-way driving post-crash provides cold
comfort to the families of the victims.

At a higher level, blame is irrelevant for
determining AV safety. The crash rate is what it is, regardless of blame.
Consider an AV that has twice as many crashes as human-driven vehicles, but
would theoretically be able to prove in a court of law that every single crash
was someone else’s fault. Such a perfectly blameless vehicle would nonetheless have
a track record of being twice as dangerous as a human-driven vehicle. That type
of approach should not be how AV designers claim that they are safe.