Self- driving or autonomous cars are just beginning to hit the market. These cars have been in development for many years, specifically since 1939 when General Motors displayed a futuristic exhibit at a convention which depicted cars that drive themselves, and their innovative technology has finally been approved to be released on the streets. However, these cars have multiple issues surrounding the cars abilities and other factors, but most importantly, there is a safety concern. Currently, these cars are a level 3 autonomous vehicle meaning that they still use assistance at the wheel and contain a wheel permanently in the vehicle. A level 5 vehicle is one that performs in all scenarios as a human would and can. Despite the push for autonomous cars to be released to market, the safety concerns surrounding these vehicles need to be addressed and potentially delay their release until they are at a level 5 (Reese).

The first cars that have been released on the streets were made by Uber using Lidar technology, according to an article found on Business Insider written by Danielle Muoio, which involves a 3D map of the cars’ surroundings, 20 cameras surrounding the top of the car, an antennae GPS, a colored camera for traffic purposes, modules on the front, sides, and back of the car to see blind spots, and lastly a cooling system to make sure the car and its technology does not overheat (Muoio). Currently, these cars contain a wheel and must have an engineer in the driver’s seat as a precaution to make sure there are no technological glitches while on the roads. These cars ask the driver to intervene because they are do not cover every driving scenario. Both Google and Uber have been racing to get this technology out for many years and only the third generation of modules has been released for public use. Companies such as Tesla and Ford have also made statements that they are working on this technology as well but they do not want to release a model until they have at least a level 4 vehicle. Additionally, during his presidency, Obama created a plan to invest around 4 billion dollars into the autonomous car industry over a period of 10 years, according to an article written on Tech Republic by Hope Reese, which made the processes of the makers of these vehicles speed up (Reese). Once these vehicles do reach a level 4, the operators will no longer have the need for a license. This can be viewed as both a positive and negative aspect of these vehicles, anyone would be able to operate them which could mean potential dangers for those who are unable to intervene in an emergency.

The cost of these vehicles is yet to be determined however, the Lidar technology has been decreased by about 90% since it was released a few years ago by the company Waymo. Alphabet, Google and Waymo’s parent company has been working to decrease the price of this technology from $75,000 to between $8,000 and $30,000 depending on the amount of lasers in the technology. Initially, Waymo attempted to remove the steering wheel and pedals from the vehicle, however, because of regulatory and environmental concerns, they could not (Muoio).

There are multiple advantages to these vehicles that go beyond the capabilities of a physical human driver. These cars offer multiple benefits to people who may not be able to drive themselves or put themselves in danger when they are behind the wheel. In a paper published by the National council on Disability, Jeff Rosen explains that these vehicles would prevent the obstacle of distractions while driving which is seen in many cases of teenage driving accidents. They also offer a method for people who are disabled and cannot drive themselves to the places they need to be such as appointments or to go out. These cars will give them a more accessible way to get around. (Rosen) Also, for older people who may not have the best reaction speeds anymore or declining eyesight, these vehicles will allow them the opportunity to maintain their social lives without giving up the accessibility of a car. Statistics have shown that these cars will provide less traffic on the roads because of their technology, there will be less accidents and interferences from things such as sunlight or hazards such as other vehicles. Another issue is in construction zones or when a police officer is directing traffic, the autonomous cars currently being released can not respond to the signals that a person is giving to them which is also a concern with these vehicles on the road. The technology does not know what to do in these situations making it a liability for the passengers and other cars on the road. Another difficulty these vehicles face is the trouble they have making left turns and yielding to oncoming traffic. Asking the passenger to intervene in these situations is a faulty concern because its not a guarantee that the passenger will be paying attention while in the vehicle or be prepared to take the wheel in any situation. In an article written by Jane Beirstedt of FP Think of Princeton University, the collaborators explained that “benefits of AVs on the road are most likely to take the form of improved mobility for all, increased safety, reduced incident- related congestion and reduced environmental and social costs” (Beirstedt 4). No one is doubting that these vehicles could potentially be extremely useful, innovative, and helpful. However, they have not proven to everyone that their benefits outweigh the potential dangers with releasing these cars to mass production and universal public use at this time. 

These self-driving cars are currently level 3 vehicles meaning “Drivers are still necessary… but are able to completely shift "safety-critical functions" to the vehicle, under certain traffic or environmental conditions. It means that the driver is still present and will intervene if necessary, but is not required to monitor the situation in the same way it does for the previous levels” (Reese). The largest jump is between levels 3 and 4 whereas level 4 vehicles do not need a driver, and they operate in almost every driving scenario for an entire trip. This means that the technology would be making the jump from having the aid of a human monitoring the majority of a ride to having passengers paying little to no attention to the road. The potential of releasing these cars to the public right now at a level 3 could pose more problems as far as relying on the human to actually pay attention to the road in a “self-driving” vehicle and intervene in any situation. Ford’s autonomous vehicle expert has made a statement backing up this evidence that they will not release an autonomous vehicle until it as actually autonomous at a level 4 because “to ask the driver to instantaneously intervene- that’s not a fair proposition” (Reese). This would be the ideal situation for all companies racing to achieve this perfect autonomous vehicle. Instead of racing to put a product out on the market they should be fully testing and making sure these cars are the best they can be and at the level they should be. 

Another issue with these vehicles, regardless of which stage they are released at is how they will be integrated in into the driving habits of the societies and communities they are released into. An example of this is rural versus urban areas; drivers tend to be more relaxed in rural settings whereas in urban settings people drive with more aggression which is discussed in Mark Coeckelbergh’s essay in the Sociable Robots and the Future of Social Relations. This could be an issue when an autonomous vehicle isn’t programed to be accustomed to one setting over another. Even highways in different states can bring different driving styles, which could pose a cultural issue as far as the assimilation of these vehicles goes (Coeckelbergh). Another concern that Coeckelbergh brings up in his article is that people are immoral and if a passenger in one of these cars gets into an accident, will they take the blame if the car caused the accident? There are no rules in place yet for these cars and if the rider is not a responsible person it could be a problem when the technology fails in one of these cars and someone is injured or a car is damaged because of it. Because of this reliability issue, in a Science Direct article written by Konig and Neumayr, people will be resistant towards trusting these vehicles to be “safe and sophisticated enough.” However many people will likely ride in them for services such as Uber, they will most likely not purchase an autonomous vehicle of their own full time (Konig). 

The makers of these vehicles are also making promises of level 5 vehicles within the next few years, specifically Nissan who’s CEO said they would be on the market by 2020.  According to Steven Shladover, a writer for the Scientific American, the technology for a level 5 vehicle will be nowhere near ready for production as they will have not created a soft wear reliable enough to have no bugs or delays in the technology (Shladover). Consider the soft wear on a computer, when the internet connection doesn’t work or as a computer gets older, it starts to show lags in the time to perform certain tasks such as open an internet window. Now, if the technology on the car does this, it could be fatal for the passengers and the people around it. These vehicles need to be able to make decisions in under a second, their reflexes need to mimic that of a human which means that this technology needs to be flawless and maintain its performance.

This technology was proven flawed in a recent accident involving an autonomous Volvo made by Uber. According to Mike Isaac and Daisuke Wakabayashi of the New York Times, the company released a fleet of cars into San Francisco “in defiance of California state regulators” (Isaac). In this case, the vehicle ran through a red light at a busy intersection and even though no one was injured, the car failed to recognize 6 other traffic lights in the same area. It was proven that the car was driving itself, even though there was an employee in the vehicle which proves even more that the intervention of a human behind the wheel of a self-driving car is ineffective. This accident is only one example as to why these cars need to undergo more testing and trials before being released to the roads. This also displays the ignorance of Uber who released the car before approval, and before significant experimentation (Isaac).

The competition between the companies has become petty; some companies like Uber have become minimalists in their attempts to fully test their products before releasing them to the public. This accident is and indirect effect of the leadership Uber’s autonomous car project leader, Anthony Levandowski, has displayed. Levandowski previously worked on Google’s team until January 2016. After, he created his own self-driving truck company, Otto, that was purchased by Uber and this is how he became the head of their self-driving car project. Waymo, a partner of Google filed a lawsuit in February 2017 against Uber and Levandowski for attempting to take plans from Google prior to his resignation and taking them to Uber. Levandowski is a clear example that the race to bring these cars to market is no longer about safety and precision but about speed and winning. His co- workers stated that “he was aggressive and determined with and entrepreneurial streak” (Issac), showing that his ego was far more important that producing a flawless product. 

This accident also sheds new light on the issue regarding the laws surrounding these vehicles. There is currently no framework to support any legislative rulings for autonomous vehicles. The main concern is how the courts will handle a case concerning an autonomous vehicle collision for which the technology of the vehicle was not able to respond to because it was not a scenario predicted by the manufacturer. The difficulty here would be who the fault would fall upon. Would it be the cars manufacturer because they did not foresee this situation? Would it be the passenger in the vehicle because they did not intervene before the accident occurred? This would also become an issue if the passengers in the vehicle are using it as an Uber service and get into an accident after using the car following a night of drinking for which they were trying to be responsible by not getting behind the wheel. These legal concerns are addressed in the Berkeley Technology Law Journal, written by Jessica Brodsky. Another issue is that with the release of new technologies comes big money “Plaintiffs in tort actions generally sue parties with money, and if there is an accident involving an autonomous vehicle, they will likely try to recover damages from big name players such as Google, Tesla, and other manufacturers” (Brodsky 865). It could be detrimental for these companies if they release these cars and passengers use them as an opportunity to make money. Brodsky brings up the idea that if a human assumes control of the vehicle and it still crashes it could be difficult for the courts to determine the actual cause of a collision.

 In addition to finding ways to create laws surrounding these vehicles, Brodsky suggests creating a waiver for consumers to sign; “that accept the risks of autonomous vehicles and take personal responsibility for accidents” (Brodsky 865). This would allow the courts to create a more straight forward framework and set boundaries for what the car companies are actually reliable for and decrease the likeliness that people who purchase these cars, get into accidents, and blame the car companies will get away with it. 

In conclusion, these vehicles have been released far before anyone was prepared for them. Our government is not ready to rule on incidents regarding autonomous cars. People are not ready to assume control of a car they don’t necessarily trust. And the companies who have put their self- driving technology on the roads have not sufficiently tested them enough themselves to be allowing autonomous cars and their technology to the streets. The integration of autonomous cars to the roads has not been fluent. It has caused problems within the companies racing to get the technology out, as well as with people who are skeptical about their safety and are concerned about their presence on the road. Although these cars could potentially offer multiple benefits such as lighter traffic and a more eco-friendly way to get around, they also contain many unsolved and overlooked problems. Before more companies like Uber release their cars to the road, I believe there needs to be a lot more testing in the manufacturing stage to prevent situations like the Volvo in San Fransisco. This was not the only accident sustained by an autonomous vehicle, however, it shows the magnitude of how the technology of these cars is currently faulty. The release of these vehicles should not be up to the companies making them, it should be based on a trial with outside parties to come to an unbiased decision if the company can release its car fleet and their technology to the road. Currently, there shouldn’t be any self-driving cars on the road because it has been a race for speed, not safety. The companies that have put their cars on the market have not considered the time it takes to fully test these cars and their technology to make them precise and perfect. 
