Realising Meaningful Human Control Over Automated Driving Systems: A Multidisciplinary Approach.

Core components of automated driving systems Driver's psychology Meaningful human control Responsibility gap Self-driving cars

Journal

Minds and machines
ISSN: 0924-6495
Titre abrégé: Minds Mach (Dordr)
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101668779

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
28 Jul 2022
Historique:
received: 31 08 2021
accepted: 14 06 2022
entrez: 2 8 2022
pubmed: 3 8 2022
medline: 3 8 2022
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

The paper presents a framework to realise "meaningful human control" over Automated Driving Systems. The framework is based on an original synthesis of the results of the multidisciplinary research project "Meaningful Human Control over Automated Driving Systems" lead by a team of engineers, philosophers, and psychologists at Delft University of the Technology from 2017 to 2021. Meaningful human control aims at protecting safety and reducing responsibility gaps. The framework is based on the core assumption that human persons and institutions, not hardware and software and their algorithms, should remain ultimately-though not necessarily directly-in control of, and thus morally responsible for, the potentially dangerous operation of driving in mixed traffic. We propose an Automated Driving System to be under meaningful human control if it behaves according to the relevant reasons of the relevant human actors (tracking), and that any potentially dangerous event can be related to a human actor (tracing). We operationalise the requirements for meaningful human control through multidisciplinary work in philosophy, behavioural psychology and traffic engineering. The tracking condition is operationalised via a proximal scale of reasons and the tracing condition via an evaluation cascade table. We review the implications and requirements for the behaviour and skills of human actors, in particular related to supervisory control and driver education. We show how the evaluation cascade table can be applied in concrete engineering use cases in combination with the definition of core components to expose deficiencies in traceability, thereby avoiding so-called responsibility gaps. Future research directions are proposed to expand the philosophical framework and use cases, supervisory control and driver education, real-world pilots and institutional embedding.

Identifiants

pubmed: 35915817
doi: 10.1007/s11023-022-09608-8
pii: 9608
pmc: PMC9330947
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

1-25

Informations de copyright

© The Author(s) 2022.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Conflict of interestNot Applicable.

Références

Soc Stud Sci. 2018 Feb;48(1):25-56
pubmed: 29160165
J Abnorm Soc Psychol. 1963 Jun;66:574-83
pubmed: 13938947
Z Gesundh Wiss. 2009 Dec;17(6):385-394
pubmed: 21088693
Front Robot AI. 2018 Feb 28;5:15
pubmed: 33500902
Sci Eng Ethics. 2016 Aug;22(4):1131-1149
pubmed: 26231407
Sci Eng Ethics. 2015 Jun;21(3):619-30
pubmed: 25027859
Sci Eng Ethics. 2020 Aug;26(4):2051-2068
pubmed: 31650511
IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern A Syst Hum. 2000 May;30(3):286-97
pubmed: 11760769

Auteurs

Filippo Santoni de Sio (FS)

Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands.

Giulio Mecacci (G)

Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands.
Donders Institute, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

Simeon Calvert (S)

Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands.

Daniel Heikoop (D)

Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands.

Marjan Hagenzieker (M)

Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands.

Bart van Arem (B)

Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands.

Classifications MeSH