ArticleFrontiers in robotics and AI2025
"All things equal": ethical principles governing why autonomous vehicle experts change or retain their opinions in trolley problems-a qualitative study.
Article in Frontiers in robotics and AI, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Autonomous vehicles (AVs) are already being featured on some public roads. However, there is evidence suggesting that the general public remains particularly concerned and skeptical regarding the ethics of collision scenarios. Methods: This study presents the findings of the first qualitative research into the ethical opinions of experts responsible for the design, deployment, and regulation of AVs. A total of 46 experts were interviewed in this study and presented with two trolley-problem-like vignettes. The experts were asked for an initial opinion on the basis of which the parameters of the vignettes were changed to gauge the principles that would result in either changing or retaining an ethical opinion. Much research has been conducted on public opinion, but there are no available research findings on the ethical opinions of AV experts. Results: Following reflective thematic analysis, four important findings were deduced: 1) although the expert opinions are broadly utilitarian, they are nuanced in significant ways to focus on the impacts of collision scenarios on the community as a whole. 2) Obeying the rules of the road remains a significantly strong ethical opinion. 3) Responsibility and risk play important roles in how AVs should handle collision situations. 4) Egoistic opinions were present to a limited extent. Discussion: The findings show that the ethics of AVs still pose a serious challenge; furthermore, while utilitarianism appears to be a driving ethical principle on the surface, along with the need for both AVs and vulnerable road users to obey the rules, questions concerning community impacts and risk vs. responsibility remain strong influences among AV experts.
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.