Enhanced personal safety for autonomous vehicles
AV safety discussions often get quite technical. But there are aspects of safety that have a lot more to do with personal safety concerns. It is important that AV technology deployments enhance rather than degrade personal safety.
Do autonomous vehicles improve personal safety compared to alternatives?
An important feature of a personally owned human-driven
vehicle is having more control over personal safety. A locked private vehicle
provides a measure of physical protection against potential threats to personal
safety. In a single occupancy conventional vehicle the driver can make personal
safety choices beyond the obvious one of not sharing a vehicle with a stranger
as would be the case in a taxi or ride-share vehicle. The
availability of a single-occupancy AV might extend this safety benefit to those
who cannot drive or do not have resources to own a private vehicle.
Example safety choices beyond just riding solo
include debarking in an escort-provided portion of a parking lot, selecting
routes that seem to present lower personal risk, and deciding not to exit the
vehicle at a preselected destination location that turns out to look dangerous.
To the degree that a single-occupant AV provides similar personal risk
management features, riding solo in an AV might be safer than in a shared
vehicle, including one with a human driver.
Personal safety is especially important to more vulnerable
demographic segments, particularly when traveling alone, such as women, the elderly,
and children. Also potentially at risk are identifiable minority groups in
areas prone to abusive behavior based on race, gender, ethnicity, religion, or
other factors. Beyond that, any AV user might have personal safety concerns,
especially in areas with high crime rates.
Personal safety on shared AV mass transit vehicles will
be an obvious concern as it is with crewed transit. On crewed mass transit the
crew members can provide an additional measure of social supervision and
deterrence. A potential move to smaller AV shared transit vehicles increases
the opportunity for a passenger being isolated with a potential bad actor in a
travel module, and complicates remote surveillance by multiplying the number of
small passenger compartments being managed rather than fewer large compartments.
Supervising dozens or hundreds of people on a single fully automated passenger
train seems a more tractable problem (e.g., done with an on-train conductor) than
remotely supervising dozens or hundreds of robotaxis shared by strangers.
Beyond the ride itself, there are also safety
issues related to waiting for transport arrival and offloading. In particular,
it will be important for vulnerable passengers to be able to change their
destination at the end of the trip if local conditions at the destination seem
too dangerous. Consider a city that requires using designated drop-off points
of AV robotaxis. What should a passenger do if they do not like the looks of a
group of people, potentially armed, waiting at the stop for them to get out?
A simple argument is to say that every automated low-speed
shuttle will have an attendant. While attendants might be desirable and might
prove necessary for a variety of reasons, requiring full-time staff on an
automated vehicle that is smaller than a mass transit vehicle is largely at
odds with the argument that AVs provide economic benefits due to not having to
pay a person to be on board.
The question here is: will riding on an automated
vehicle be as safe as riding in a vehicle with a human driver from a personal
safety point of view?
