1. Rajan 1
Arshia Rajan
PHIL 4699 – Undergraduate Research
08/05/2016
Autonomous Vehicles: Stakeholder Analysis
The advent of autonomous vehicles is a complex topic since it not only has an impact on
the user, but also on society as a whole. The market and population is quickly moving towards
driverless cars, with many changes coming with this suite of autonomous technologies and
systems. The onset of autonomous vehicles will effect several stakeholders, as outlined below.
The purpose of this stakeholder analysis is to anticipate the effects on society so that risks can be
mitigated and possible negative effects and outcomes may be curbed. By anticipating future
consequences, autonomous vehicles can be designed in ways to preempt problematic aspects.
This rapidly emerging technology has the potential to unsettle the current status quo; thus, it is
critical for business and policy leaders to recognize in what ways they will be affected in order to
prepare for the future. Both business and policy leaders will also need to work in ways to meet
the needs and standards of the public in order to avoid public outrage and also commercialize
these vehicles. The stakeholders that will be discussed are the government, businesses, and the
general public. Due to different vested interests within each of these larger categories, there are
also smaller subdivisions. For example, different governmental agencies will have different
interests and goals, different businesses will be geared in different directions, and various public
segments will be impacted in several ways.
Government regulators and law enforcement officials are both large stakeholders in the
debate over autonomous vehicles. They will be faced with numerous barriers to implementation
and mass-market penetration with autonomous vehicles because of their controversial nature.
This stakeholder will need to anticipate the upcoming changes in order to be prepared and act
quickly and as effectively as possible. Currently, licensing and testing standards are developed
state-wide rather than as a national framework – this leads to inconsistencies in regulations
across states (Fagnant). Mark Rosekind, NHTSA Administrator, explains that various state
partners will work towards creating consistent policies regarding these innovations (“Secretary
Foxx Unveils President”). However, Rosekind clearly points out the NHTSA’s belief that states
should have substantial independence in regulations regarding autonomous driving. However, if
states are able to decide their own individual regulations, this may inevitably lead to inconsistent
state laws and regulations. Evidence of this has started to develop in eight states and the District
of Columbia (Jackson). The California Department of Motor Vehicles has proposed regulations
which require autonomous vehicles to have a licensed human driver that could potentially take
over operation of the vehicle at any time. But, the state of Michigan has proposed legislation
which would expressly allow autonomous vehicles to operate sans a human driver (Jackson). The
government will need to establish consistency regarding self-driving vehicles in the near future.
To the governmental agencies and regulators, safety will be of the utmost priority while different
manufacturers work to deploy autonomous vehicles. This will be made possible through
consistent understandings of different performance characteristics for the testing and analysis of

2. Rajan 2
fully driver-less vehicles (“Secretary Foxx Unveils President”). But, liabilities remain largely
undefined, security concerns are eminent, and new privacy and safety standards are absent. In
order to address these concerns, the federal government should work to expand research in these
problematic areas. For example, creating nationally accepted licensing structures for autonomous
vehicles and determining suitable standards for liability, security, and data privacy is a possible
solution (Fagnant). Governments, nationwide and worldwide, will need to change road
regulations in order to incorporate self-driving vehicles since the automobile’s control will be in
the hands of a machine rather than the human. Under current traffic regulations, drivers must
have full control over an automobile. An example of updates to policies is the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) reflecting the reality of the widespread distribution and
integration of fully autonomous vehicles (“Secretary Foxx Unveils President”). Driverless cars
may cause resistance in the adoptions of these vehicles due to changing regulations. The
government’s transportation sector has a vested interest in the implementation and placement of
automated vehicles. Due to the sector’s negative impact on the climate, they are motivated to
combat climate change using these automated vehicles. The inevitable change in the nature of
mobility will lead to increased car sharing and decreased vehicles presence. By extension,
greenhouse gas emissions will be reduced. (“Self-driving cars will be”). The inevitable arrival of
self-driving vehicles will make room for new opportunities such as the increased incidence of car
sharing. Rental services will begin to be substitutes for personal vehicle ownership – proving
individuals numerous savings (Litman).
Three key challenges that the government stakeholder will face in the adoption of
autonomous vehicles are legal liability, government policies, and consumer acceptance.
(“Autonomous Cars/Driverless Cars Market Size Report, 2024”). In terms of automated long-
distance train transport, it will be necessary and expensive to upgrade thousands of kilometers of
networks and sensors. Fully autonomous road-based transport will be extremely challenging for
railroads but it will be paramount for rail-based transport to increase their network capacities.
They must be able to increase their capacity due to the fact that trains can be operated at higher
frequencies and over shorter distances than other sources of transportation. This flexibility will
be crucial if railroads want to stay relevant against the increasing competition from fully
autonomous cars (“German Railways to Introduce”). It will be essential to change the layout of
roads and traffic patterns with the implementation and testing of driverless cars. Currently, roads
are built around human needs and behaviors. With driverless cars, road signs will change and
may also be removed. As drivers become predictable machines rather than error-prone and
unpredictable humans, speed limits can be altered. Intersections, merges, etc. will be safer with
machine reliability and the lack of reliance on reflexes (McLaughlin). Increased safety due to
autonomous vehicles and increased efficiency in transportation systems will greatly increase
government and taxpayer money because of decreased accidents. (“Autonomous Cars/Driverless
Cars Market Size Report, 2024”). Many cities are striving to be pioneers in autonomous
technology integration (“Cities around the World”). Secretary of Transportation, Anthony Foxx,
has revealed a portion of President Obama’s plan to accelerate and advance the safe development
and implementation of automated vehicles. President Obama’s FY17 budget proposal is a ten
year, almost $4 billion investment which will test different vehicle systems through pilot
programs in designated areas around the country (“Secretary Foxx Unveils President”). With the

3. Rajan 3
decreased demand for human drivers and driver’s tests, pressure would be placed upon
governments for a new mode of federal identification. Today, many arguments against lowering
the drinking age and legalizing marijuana are because of impaired drivers. But, with the rise of
automated vehicles, people under the influence would not be the ones driving. This will cause an
uproar in governmental regulations. Law enforcement would also be revolutionized with the
onset of driverless vehicles. In many areas, speed traps are a large source of municipal revenue.
But, with machines in control of the vehicle, the vehicle will not ever drive above the speed limit
(McLaughlin). In order to address the challenges that will arise with autonomous vehicles, policy
makers can create new informative and training systems to address concerns proficiently and
effectively. Governments will need to balance growth from the new technologies as well as
guard public welfare as economies and lives are reshaped (Manyika et al.). Secretary Foxx states,
“We are on the cusp of a new era in automotive technology with enormous potential to save
lives, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and transform mobility for the American people”
(“Secretary Foxx Unveils President”). Governments will need to work with business leaders in
various industries to guarantee common frameworks for autonomous vehicles.
Many businesses, namely insurance companies, software technology companies, and
automobile manufacturers will be stakeholders in the discussion of autonomous vehicles. The
legal and insurance landscape will be severely altered. Auto insurance and accident lawsuits are
multi-billion dollar businesses. Eliminating vehicles that require drivers would be highly
disruptive in these business enterprises (McLaughlin). Disruptive technologies are game
changers for many businesses – in this case, insurance companies. These businesses may need to
create entirely new products and services, as well as shift value pools between consumers and
producers (Manyika et al.). With autonomous cars, insurance costs will surely fall for the
majority of users because of the added safety of autonomous vehicles (Dallegro). The added
safety provided by autonomous vehicles allows for decreased impact and frequency of accidents
– causing reduced demand for customer coverage. There will be additional insurance losses with
the advent of shared mobility services since they will be a more convenient and cost-effective
alternative to individually-driven vehicles (Bronson). Consumers are provided coverage in the
event of human error accidents, but with driverless vehicles, automobile insurers will need to
change their business model from insuring individuals to insuring car manufacturers whose
products failed due to technical error. Car insurance would be downsized greatly and lawyers
would be redirected to suing manufacturers rather than drivers (McLaughlin). These changes
would transform the insurance industry from focusing on millions of private individuals to a few
manufacturers (Bertoncello and Dominik). And although autonomous cars will help to decrease
distracted driver accidents, there are still many risks associated with them (Dhanjani). Building
any type of automated machine with a sense of integrity is a complicated job and will require the
energy of philosophers, engineers, computer scientists, legislators, lawyers, and the like. As
machines are growing ever more intelligent and powerful, a sense of morality in them is
becoming more imperative (Marcus). The autonomous vehicle (AV) revolution will create
numerous growth opportunities across the value chain. Opportunities will be presented in
emerging sensor and processor supplier technologies. Boosted demand for high-definition maps,
data connectivity, and cloud-based data services will create more space in the automotive
segment of technology companies (Mosquet et al.).

4. Rajan 4
Since the expanse of the transportation industry is so massive, the onset of driverless
vehicles will cause huge repercussions on society (Vanstone). As with any new technology,
businesses that do not adapt fast enough will suffer greatly. Car designs are mainly built around
human driver need. But, with driverless cars, there will no longer be a need to have everything
within arm’s reach of the driver. This makes room for new design changes (McLaughlin). For
example, new designs could permit passengers to be centered on one another, rather than facing
forward at all times. Technology firms will be better placed to develop and profit from
automated software and vehicle-sharing. Some of these technology firms may begin to
manufacture their own cars, such as Google. Many car manufacturers are having to reinvent
themselves in order to curb the possibility of disruption (“The Driverless, Car-sharing Road
Ahead”). Over the past few years, almost every major vehicle manufacturer, supplier, or
technological company has announced plans concerning autonomous vehicles. Many have
identified the feasibility and benefits of self-driving vehicles – which has made them more
popular to design and implement (“Deploying Autonomous Vehicles”). Vehicle production will
decrease while the amount of shared cars on the road will dramatically increase. Many car
manufacturers are teaming up with tech giants in order to avoid disruption (“The Driverless, Car-
sharing Road Ahead”). According to BCG, “Telecommunications companies will need not only
to plan investments in infrastructure but also to collaborate with automotive players and explore
new service models for consumers. Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) will need to
watch for disruptive moves by tech players, such as Google’s and Apple’s forays into the
automotive arena” (Mosquet et al.). Both sides have something the other needs. Tech giants need
assistance in building and marketing cars, as well as working with safety and emission regulators
while car manufacturers need the software technology to innovate their cars to better fit the
future (“The Driverless, Car-sharing Road Ahead”). In 2014, Chinese search engine – Baidu –
entered the automation race. At the end of 2015, a partnership between Baidu and BMW
presented an early prototype of an autonomous car. While Google’s main focus is on cars for the
individual, Baidu is more focused on autonomous buses or shuttles – as they expect fixed route
transport to be the first wave of self-driving vehicles (“Baidu expects autonomous buses”). In
addition to the automotive segment, suppliers such as Bosch, Continental, Delphi, Automotive,
Mobileye, Valeo, Velodyne, and Nvidia, are preparing for the future of automated vehicles.
These suppliers “are in the advanced stages of testing the positioning, guidance, and processing
technology needed to make AVs a commercial reality” (Mosquet et al.). Since automated
vehicles are powered by different hardware and software components, vehicle manufacturers and
suppliers will need to seriously invest in both. These will provide AVs with sensor technologies
and processors to be commercialized on a large scale (Mosquet et al.). According to Barclays, 11
million in mass-market annual sales for personal ownership in America may soon be replaced by
3.8 million in self-driving car sales – either personally owned or part of taxi fleets (“The
Driverless, Car-sharing Road Ahead”). Manufacturers are being encouraged to check different
software innovations with federal safety standards to ensure consistency and safety (“Secretary
Foxx Unveils President”). Based on “deep neural networks,” self-driving software is being
developed to mimic the millions of neurons in the brain. The software in autonomous vehicles
recognizes and classifies objects using millions of images and examples from databases as a part
of real-world driving situations (Dia). Planning for a range of circumstances is vital to business

5. Rajan 5
leaders. Even though well and long-established models may be comfortable, business leaders
need to look beyond them in order to innovate and stay competitive. (Manyika et al.) However,
driving is more complex than identifying objects, there are also moral and ethical concerns about
autonomy.
Apart from the engineering and design changes that will need to be made to self-driving
vehicles in the coming years, there are also ethical issues that will need to be taken into
consideration. Allowing someone or something else to answer personal and moral questions is
not something most people would agree to (Dryden). By extension, allowing designers and
manufacturers to choose how a car should react to moral problems is not fully ethical for many
reasons. Furthermore, by design, cars will not be able to respect driver preferences in personal
and moral situations. If car designers are to assume authority over moral decisions, they are
risking making technology less ethical and less trustworthy (Millar). As Riek and Howard state,
“A still greater challenge comes in the form of deciding whether robot-to-human handoff will be
standard in situations calling for explicit moral judgement on the part of the controller, as with
the standard ‘trolley-problem’ scenarios, or whether a capacity for such judgement will be
designed into the automated control systems, themselves” (Riek and Howard). The age-old
‘trolley-problem’ is an iconic philosophical thought experiment. The imaginary scenario has
shaped what is ‘right and wrong’ to the human mind as well as helped different academic
ethicists, moral psychologists, and engineers to answer different profound questions relating to
human interaction and behaviors (Davis). The dilemma in the ‘trolley-problem’ portrays the
distinction between two different concepts of morality – choosing the action with the best overall
consequences and the idea to always follow strict duties (“never kill a human being”) (Davis).
Patrick Lin, a philosophy professor who teaches at California Polytechnic State University, has
given numerous talks to Google, Tesla, and others about the ethics behind automating vehicles.
Lin says, “Not a lot of engineers appreciate or grasp the problem of programming a car ethically,
as opposed to programming it to strictly obey the law” (Davis). Often times, Lin uses the
‘trolley-problem’ as to show that not all questions can be solved through engineering. Design
challenges come with numerous ethical deliberations. Such a deliberation may be a situation in
which robot-to-human handoff is suggested. The ease of handoff must be designed in such a way
to avoid substantial disturbance of control (Riek and Howard). Chris Gerdes, a mechanical
engineering professor at Stanford University, has spent many years on automated vehicle
algorithms. He explains that in many driverless car situations, there will be conflicting priorities.
According to Gerdes, the ‘trolley-problem’ is a useful springboard because “[It] is one way of
highlighting the fact that you eventually reach a point where you have to make some decisions,
and not everybody will agree” (Davis). Looking beyond technological considerations, the design
of autonomous cars is in no way simple.
Manufacturers and regulators will need to be reasonably consistent, not cause public
outrage, and not discourage buyers. Encouraging buyers is a commercial necessity but is also a
moral imperative because of the social and safety-related benefits that AVs provide (Bonnefon,
Shariff, and Rahwan). In order to avoid public outrage, these AVs need to be equipped with
moral algorithms which support human morals. This is crucial in order to adopt a content public.
But, simultaneously pursuing fairness and encouraging buyers may lead to moral inconsistencies

6. Rajan 6
(Bonnefon, Shariff, and Rahwan). For example, assuming a common moral attitude may not fit
all moral doctrines. Minimizing damage fits best in the utilitarian framework, but this may
discourage AV buyers if they believe that their personal safety should trump over any other
considerations. Designers and engineers will need to understand and respect limits to moral
authority. They will also need to accommodate driver autonomy in difficult and morally intense
situations (Millar). Many ethical discussions regarding automated vehicles begin with the three
famous robotics laws from Isaac Asimov. The First Law states: “A robot may not injure a human
being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.” The Second Law states: “A
robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict
with the First Law.” Finally, the Third Law by Asimov states: “A robot must protect its own
existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law” (Jones).
Currently, there are many issues with following through with these laws – the “human” aspect of
a robot. Artificial intelligence is far from being realistically encoded into software (Marcus).
Basic computer and software rules are only capable of literal interpretations – a computer will
only do exactly what it is told. But, some traffic rules generally require an application of
common sense. Misinterpretations in these rules can lead to unanticipated, and even fatal,
performance. Such rules can be added or made clearer, but it is unlikely that any number of rules
would be able to include all circumstances (Goodall 99). Supposing the software programming is
possible, the rules may be too restrictive to even be able to be implemented. This is due to the
fact that a robot may not injure human beings while also protecting its own existence (Marcus).
Another ethical issue that arises is the developing of such software rules – a human being would
still need to articulate morals into such rules. This remains a difficult task since there is no one
answer of what constitutes “right and wrong” (Goodall 99). This can be noted by the
controversial ‘trolley-problem.’ Full attention to such ethical questions will be compulsory in
order to ensure responsible practices. Ethically aware culture will benefit the research,
development, and marketing of autonomous cars (Riek and Howard).
Finally, the largest stakeholder is the general public. This includes the elderly and
disabled, those whose jobs revolve around driving, and everyday consumers. ADAS (Advanced
Driver Assistance Systems) vehicles have a high potential in increased safety functions and
reducing energy usage, congestion, and pollution. Conventional vehicles today have a plethora of
costs weighed on the user including car insurance, fuel costs, depreciation of the vehicle,
external costs such as repairs, and monetary fines (“Autonomous Cars/Driverless Cars Market
Size Report, 2024”). From the consumer point of view, cars which are able to reroute themselves
automatically and avoid high traffic areas will severely cut down on travel time, fuel
consumption, and enhance productivity since people will be spending less time and energy
traveling to and from locations. The aging population in Japan is expected to be a key player in
the adoption of driverless cars due to their safe and convenient nature (“Autonomous
Cars/Driverless Cars Market Size Report, 2024”). Another particularly positive effect of
driverless cars is changing who can drive. The elderly, the handicapped, etc. will have increased
mobility and independence with the onset of driverless vehicles (Lin). On the flip side,
independent mobility for non-drivers will reduce the need for chauffeurs who previously drove
non-drivers (Litman). A key public policy issue is the degree to which automated vehicle
technology may harm people who will not use such a technology altogether. Walking and

7. Rajan 7
cycling conditions may be spoiled with changed roads and increased traffic volumes and speeds
because of AVs. Human-driven vehicles may not be allowed because of safety concerns, also
causing a decline in public transport (Litman). As previously mentioned, the future of automated
vehicles will come across circumstances in which the “right” thing to do is morally and/or
legally unclear. In such situations, vehicles will need to be “programmed to think” and act upon
the best ethical action (Goodall 94). European consumers have been shown to be particularly
adaptive and keen towards new technologies and regulation changes. These European consumers
are expected to fuel demand for driverless vehicles (“Autonomous Cars/Driverless Cars Market
Size Report, 2024”). Jenny King, from the Chicago Tribune, states, “BCG’s Thomas Dauner and
Xavier Mosquet emphasized the importance of the auto industry investing in a future 20 years
hence that could include automated vehicles representing 25 percent of sales, with Japan and
Europe in the vanguard” (King). Other than increased safety, drivers would have more time for
other things – allowing for a more productive and efficient society.
A potential benefit of automated cars is the decrease in household costs for
transportation. People do not truly need a car when a shared car can be driven to wherever the
person would like. With the increased incidence of car-sharing, fewer cars would be on the road.
Additionally, with fewer owners, and there would be a much smaller demand for parking lots
and spaces (Dallegro). Self-driving vehicles will have the ability to drop off passengers and
rather than waiting in a parking space, they can pick up other passengers – saving both space and
the lifespan of the car. This will result in increased transport convenience and reduced parking
costs for individuals (Litman). Parking locations cover approximately one-third of the land in
many U.S. cities. This land could be repurposed as a green space or used to revitalize a suburb
(Dallegro). Renovating parking spaces into socially and economically useful spaces would be a
resourceful opportunity for many municipal authorities. The reduced parking and infrastructure
investments from car-sharing may also lower oil and gas demand (Mosquet et al.). Federal and
state budgets could be adjusted to reallocated funds from roads and highways to more
resourceful things, such as education. In 2030, self-driving cars are expected to create $87 billion
in opportunities for automobile manufacturers and technology developers, according to Lux
Research (Dallegro).
Along with the positive effects, there are also negative effects on society and the public
regarding autonomous vehicles. Car culture would be destroyed. Cars have been a large indicator
of independence in America. In a world where the car is no longer controlled by an individual,
this culture would dramatically change. Our military preparedness would be degraded since
many young people would begin to grow up without driving experience and they will be faced
with a decline in life skills (such as reflexes) that we have taken for granted today (McLaughlin).
Taxi and miscellaneous driving jobs would be destroyed. Taxi, limo, delivery, and truck driver
jobs would be greatly reduced and quite possibly eliminated in some cases (McLaughlin). Due to
the onset of autonomous vehicles, social equity concerns may arise because of unfair impacts in
reducing other modes of transportation (Litman). In our world today, these jobs are vital to our
transport system and modern life would come to a striking halt if they were to be eliminated
(Vanstone). According to Global Automotive Leader of EY, Mike Hanley, “The introduction of
AVs could accelerate the move away from vehicle ownership to mobility solutions such as car

8. Rajan 8
sharing programs and first-mile/last-mile connectivity. AV fleets may also deploy a greater share
of alternate powertrain vehicles” (“Deploying Autonomous Vehicles”). But, eliminating human
truck drivers brings the potential for a faster network of the distribution of goods. Companies
would be able to reshape and optimize their supply chains and logistical operations with the
combination of autonomous vehicles and smart technology. This combination works to reduce
labor costs while increasing efficiency and productivity (Bertoncello and Dominik). Driverless
cars will bring both risk and opportunity. While the population of drivers today will greatly
shrink, someone will still need to provide a supply of on-demand vehicles to consumers.
The onset and arrival of autonomous vehicles will cause numerous, dramatic societal
effects. A positive effect is fewer car accidents – there will likely be a drastic reduction in the
number of car accidents, causing death, injury, and property loss. Although accidents could not
be entirely avoided, they would be much rarer than they are now (McLaughlin). This brings to
question different morality questions and if any are ethically worrisome. Algorithms will need to
be defined in order to guide AVs in situations where there is unavoidable harm. Such situations
may be a decision to run over pedestrians, swerving into a passerby, or to self-destruct. These are
all decisions based on morality, especially in situations where harm cannot be entirely avoided
(Goodall 97-98). Conceivably, the most resilient argument against self-driving vehicles is the
cost at which reduction in overall fatalities occurs. Since increased safety for one group of
individuals comes at the expense of another, this may be unacceptable to society (Goodall 97-
98). Moral and personal autonomy can be examined in the aspect of driverless vehicles. Moral
autonomy is the capacity to deliberate and to give oneself the moral law, rather than taking into
account the opinions and warnings of others (Dryden). Personal autonomy is the capacity to
decide for oneself and pursue the course of action in one’s life, regardless of any moral context
(Dryden). Autonomous vehicles must be programmed to constantly calculate risk in order to
decide how much risk to accept for themselves and for neighboring vehicles. Due to various time
constraints, the vehicle must autonomously decide how to allocate risk among the affected
parties (Goodall 94). In the perspective of both the deontological and utilitarian frameworks,
autonomous cars would be accepted since their intent and goal is to save millions of lives by
eliminating driver-related deaths. In this case, society is better off as a whole with the overall
savings of lives, giving us a positive, ethical result (Lin). Deontologists – duty-based ethicists –
may struggle with the idea of software making the decision to save the passenger or pedestrian
since software is emotionless and does not have the ability of “good-will thinking.” On the other
hand, utilitarians would believe that a crash would be avoided since computers can outperform
humans anyways. The main roadblock in the mind of the utilitarian is the lack of ability to
recognize the rights of individuals. A utilitarian automated vehicle would perform in order to
maximize overall safety, which many may consider unfair. In the case where there is a choice
between colliding into two different vehicles, the utilitarian AV would choose to collide into the
one with a higher safety rating (Goodall 97). All things considered, if the ultimate goal is to
improve overall safety for individuals, automated vehicles must be designed, manufactured, and
distributed in morally and legally acceptable ways in order to gain the trust of the public
(Goodall 98).

9. Rajan 9
The arrival of driverless vehicles is imminent. They will not only cause a technological
revolution, but also a value chain transformation. The deployment and implementation of
autonomous vehicles (at any level), will have severe effects on different stakeholders across all
levels (“Deploying Autonomous Vehicles”). The bottom line is that with any new technology,
the lives of future generations will be changed. Fully adopting automated vehicles will take time
to adopt them into our culture today; but, their convenience, cost, and safety, amongst other
factors will make them ubiquitous and indispensable to users. According to Secretary Foxx,
“Today’s actions and those we will pursue in the coming months will provide the foundation and
the path forward for manufacturers, state officials, and consumers to use new technologies and
achieve their full safety potential” (“Secretary Foxx Unveils President”). The effects of
autonomous vehicles can result in the harm or benefit of others, anywhere around the planet. In
order to overcome the challenges that come with autonomous vehicles, these different
stakeholders will need to work together in order to create different policies and business models
to facilitate the adoption and implementation of autonomous vehicles. Similar to previous
technological revolutions, companies which plan ahead and adjust the fastest will survive and
thrive in a changing world. The report discusses the numerous potential benefits of autonomous
vehicles, but also the challenges that will come with their arrival. Although fully autonomous
vehicles are not in the near future, they are undoubtedly a rapidly advancing technological
phenomenon. If government and business leaders are to wait until this technology has a full-
fledged influence, it may be too late to reap the benefits or react to the consequences (Manyika et
al.). There may come a day where the difference between human and automated driving will be
so large that it will be immoral to drive your own car, because the risk will be much higher for a
human to drive versus a machine (Marcus). Until then, we have a lot to think about. Based on the
discussion throughout this report, it can be concluded that autonomous vehicles will have a
bigger impact on society than one could imagine. Therefore, it makes sense to look at the advent
of this new technology from the holistic point of view of the involved stakeholders.

10. Rajan 10
Works Cited
"Autonomous Cars/Driverless Cars Market Size Report, 2024." Grand View Research.
Grand View Research, Inc., June 2016. Web. 28 June 2016.
Bertoncello, Michele, and Dominik Wee. "Ten Ways Autonomous Driving Could
Redefine the Automotive World."McKinsey & Company. McKinsey & Company, June 2015.
Web. 26 June 2016.
Bronson, Caitlin. "Allstate Admits Driverless Cars Could Gut the Company." Insurance
Business. 2016 Key Media Inc, 25 Feb. 2016. Web. 12 July 2016.
Bonnefon, Jean-Fran¸cois, Azim Shariff, and Iyad Rahwan. "Autonomous Vehicles Need
Experimental Ethics: Are We Ready for Utilitarian Cars?" (n.d.): n. pag. Cornell University
Library, 12 Oct. 2015. Web. 03 Aug. 2016.
Davis, Lauren Cassani. "Would You Pull the Trolley Switch? Does It Matter? | The
Lifespan of a Thought Experiment." The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, 9 Oct. 2015. Web.
01 Aug. 2016.
"Deploying Autonomous Vehicles | Commercial Considerations and Urban Mobility
Scenarios." AccessScience (n.d.): n. pag. Ernst & Young. Web. 30 June 2016.
Dia, Hussein. "Who (or What) Is behind the Wheel? The Regulatory Challenges of
Driverless Cars." The Conversation. The Conversation US, Inc., 6 Mar. 2016. Web. 26 June
2016.
Dryden, Jane. "Autonomy." Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Internet Encyclopedia
of Philosophy, n.d. Web. 26 June 2016.
Fagnant, Daniel J., and Kara Kockelman. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and
Practice. Preparing a Nation for Autonomous Vehicles: Opportunities, Barriers and Policy
Recommendations. Elsevier, July 2015. Web. 12 July 2016.
Goodall, Noah J. "Machine Ethics and Automated Vehicles." Road Vehicle Automation.
Ed. Gereon Meyer and Sven Beiker. Switzerland: Springer International, 2014. 93-102. Print.
Lecture Notes in Mobility.
Hars, Alexander. "Baidu Expects Autonomous Buses to Become First Wave of Self-
driving Vehicles." Driverless Car Market Watch. Wordpress, 31 Jan. 2016. Web. 12 July 2016.
Hars, Alexander. "Cities around the World Jump on the Self-driving Car
Bandwagon." Driverless Car Market Watch. Wordpress, 31 May 2016. Web. 12 July 2016.
Hars, Alexander. "German Railways to Introduce Autonomous Long Distance Trains by
2023." Driverless Car Market Watch. Wordpress, 11 June 2016. Web. 12 July 2016.
Hars, Alexander. "Self-driving cars will be a potent weapon to combat climate
change." Driverless Car Market Watch. Wordpress, 29 December 2015. Web. 12 July 2016.

11. Rajan 11
Jackson, Dustin J. "NHTSA Will Give States Autonomy on Self-Driving
Rules."Lexology. Globe Business Media Group, 20 June 2016. Web. 01 Aug. 2016.
Jones, Josh. "Isaac Asimov Explains His Three Laws of Robots." Open Culture. Open
Culture, LLC, 31 Oct. 2012. Web. 01 Aug. 2016.
King, Jenny. "Consumers Welcome the Future of Self-driving Cars: Study." Chicago
Tribune. Chicago Tribune, 2 Feb. 2015. Web. 19 July 2016.
Lin, Patrick. "The Ethics of Saving Lives With Autonomous Cars Is Far Murkier Than
You Think." Wired.com. Conde Nast Digital, 30 July 2013. Web. 01 July 2016.
Litman, Todd. "Autonomous Vehicle Implementation Predictions Implications for
Transport Planning." (n.d.): n. pag. Victoria Transport Policy Institute, 10 Dec. 2015. Web.
Manyika, James, Michael Chui, Jacques Bughin, Richard Dobbs, Peter Bisson, and Alex
Marrs. "Disruptive Technologies, Innovation, and Competition in the Digital
Economy." Disruptive Technologies: Advances That Will Transform Life, Business, and the
Global Economy (2013): 183-211. Developing Strategic Business Models and Competitive
Advantage in the Digital Sector. McKinsey & Company, May 2013. Web. 12 July 2016.
Marcus, Gary. "Moral Machines." (n.d.): n. pag. The New Yorker, 24 Nov. 2012. Web.
18 July 2016.
McLaughlin, Dan. "17 Ways Driverless Cars Could Change America." The Federalist.
FDRLST Media, 16 July 2014. Web. 28 June 2016.
Millar, Jason. "Should Your Driverless Car Kill You to save a Child's Life?" The
Conversation. The Conversation US, Inc., 1 Aug. 2014. Web. 30 June 2016.
Mosquet, Xavier, Thomas Dauner, Nikolaus Lang, Michael Rüßmann, Antonella Mei-
Pochtler, Rakshita Agrawal, and Florian Schmieg. "Revolution in the Driver’s Seat: The Road to
Autonomous Vehicles." Bcg Perspectives. BCG - Boston Consulting Group, 21 Apr. 2015. Web.
19 July 2016.
Riek, Laurel D., and Don Howard. "A Code of Ethics for the Human-Robot Interaction
Profession." Social Science Research Network. Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc., 4 Apr.
2014. Web. 19 July 2016.
"Secretary Foxx Unveils President Obama's FY17 Budget Proposal of Nearly $4 Billion
for Automated Vehicles and Announces DOT Initiatives to Accelerate Vehicle Safety
Innovations." Department of Transportation. U.S. Department of Transportation, 14 Jan. 2016.
Web. 12 July 2016.
"The Driverless, Car-sharing Road Ahead." The Economist. The Economist Newspaper,
09 Jan. 2016. Web. 28 June 2016.
Vanstone, Leon. "In a Driverless Future, What Happens to Today's Drivers?" The
Conversation. The Conversation US, Inc., 13 Jan. 2016. Web. 28 June 2016.