Who is to blame for car crashes? According to a study conducted by the US’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the “critical reason” for crashes is often attributed to the driver. The study analyzed 5470 crashes between 2005 and 2007 and found that in 94% of cases, the driver’s actions were the last significant event before impact. However, this statistic has been misused by advocates of driver assistance and autonomous vehicles to promote their cause.
The NHTSA has taken great pains to clarify that while driver actions may be the last event in the crash causal chain, they are not necessarily the root cause of the crash. Antonio Avenoso, the executive director of the European Transport Safety Council, stated that the claim that eliminating human error would prevent over 90% of crashes is simply wrong. He attributed this misunderstanding to a fundamental misunderstanding by those who use the statistic incorrectly.
In reality, humans are the root cause of all crashes. Even if a mechanical failure occurs, it can be traced back to human error in design or maintenance. Human error is pervasive in all aspects of life. For example, in a simple encounter between a squirrel and a magpie in the garden, human error can be seen. The presence of grey squirrels is due to humans importing their ancestors, and spilled bird seeds can be attributed to poorly designed feeders or overfilling by humans.
If human errors can be found in everyday situations like these, it raises the question of who should be blamed for crashes that are no longer caused by drivers. Blaming automation or computer systems would be misguided. As seen in cases like the NHS computer issues or the Post Office Horizon IT scandal, it is the people behind these systems who are ultimately responsible. The concern is that as automation increases, personal accountability decreases. In the event of an automated crash, it becomes difficult to determine who should apologize or hold the system accountable.
While automation can reduce the number of crashes, finding an “acceptable” level of automated collisions and casualties becomes challenging when personal accountability diminishes. Currently, people are at the wheel and bear ultimate responsibility. However, even if the wrongly advocated 94% reduction in collisions were achieved, it would not be enough. Humans are prone to making mistakes, but we also have the capacity for remorse and forgiveness. Without these qualities, the goal of zero harm becomes unattainable.
In conclusion, it is important to recognize that human error is the root cause of all crashes. While automation can reduce the number of collisions, holding individuals accountable becomes more challenging. Striking a balance between reducing harm and maintaining personal accountability is a complex task. Ultimately, it is our human nature that allows us to learn from our mistakes and strive for improvement in road safety.
