ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2021
From driverless dilemmas to more practical commonsense tests for automated vehicles.
Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Computational hermeneutics: evaluating generative AI as a cultural technology.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Article
- Moral Complexity in Traffic: Advancing the ADC Model for Automated Driving Systems.Science and engineering ethics · 2025Article
- Understanding common human driving semantics for autonomous vehicles.Patterns (New York, N.Y.) · 2023Article
- Multiple vehicle cooperation and collision avoidance in automated vehicles: survey and an AI-enabled conceptual framework.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- AI-assisted ethics? considerations of AI simulation for the ethical assessment and design of assistive technologies.Frontiers in genetics · 2023Article
- Human injury-based safety decision of automated vehicles.iScience · 2022Article
- A Deeper Look at Autonomous Vehicle Ethics: An Integrative Ethical Decision-Making Framework to Explain Moral Pluralism.Frontiers in robotics and AI · 2021Article
- Ethical dilemmas are really important to potential adopters of autonomous vehicles.Ethics and information technology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
For the first time in history, automated vehicles (AVs) are being deployed in populated environments. This unprecedented transformation of our everyday lives demands a significant undertaking: endowing complex autonomous systems with ethically acceptable behavior. We outline how one prominent, ethically relevant component of AVs-driving behavior-is inextricably linked to stakeholders in the technical, regulatory, and social spheres of the field. Whereas humans are presumed (rightly or wrongly) to have the "common sense" to behave ethically in new driving situations beyond a standard driving test, AVs do not (and probably should not) enjoy this presumption. We examine, at a high level, how to test the common sense of an AV. We start by reviewing discussions of "driverless dilemmas," adaptions of the traditional "trolley dilemmas" of philosophy that have sparked discussion on AV ethics but have limited use to the technical and legal spheres. Then, we explain how to substantially change the premises and features of these dilemmas (while preserving their behavioral diagnostic spirit) in order to lay the foundations for a more practical and relevant framework that tests driving common sense as an integral part of road rules testing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.