Citation

Kyoung JY, Jung YS. J. Transp. Res. (Seoul) 2023; 30(2): 47-60.

Vernacular Title

자율주행차 사고 시 보상책임에 대한 인식- 사고에 대한 통제 소재를 중심으로 -

Copyright

(Copyright © 2023, Korea Transport Institute)

DOI

10.34143/JTR.2023.30.2.47

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

Collisions of autonomous vehicles (AVs) are different from those of traditional vehicles with respect to the responsibility of drivers since autonomous driving systems take over the control of the vehicles. However, the current law system does not allow distributing liability of collisions to manufacturers, and liability of collisions lies only with AV users. As this liability system is not consistent with public perception, the Korean government has launched the Autonomous Vehicle Accident Investigation Committee. In this context, it is useful to examine how ordinary people perceive liability for autonomous vehicle accidents. This study aims to provide an understanding of how individuals perceive liability regarding collisions of AVs. By conducting an online experiment, this study investigated how vehicle types (AVs vs. traditional vehicles) and the locus of control (internal locus vs. external locus) affect individuals& perceived liability of a collision. After randomly assigned to one of the four experimental conditions, participants in the experiment read a scenario where either an AV or a traditional car was engaged in a collision. The collision was attributed to either the AV or the driver (internal locus) or to external circumstances (external locus). Then, participants completed a questionnaire to present their perceptions regarding the extent of liability held by the driver, the car manufacturer, and the government. According to the results, drivers of traditional vehicles were perceived to be more liable than drivers of AVs. Especially, when an AV caused a collision due to its own fault (internal locus), the driver&s liability decreased to a greater degree. Furthermore, the liability of the car manufacturer or the government was perceived to be higher when the collision involved an AV than when the collision concerned a traditional vehicle. Particularly, the perceived liability of the manufacturer increased to a greater degree when the collision was caused by an AV at fault. However, the perceived liability of the government did not increase even if an AV is responsible for the collision. The present study expands upon previous research on responsibility attribution regarding collisions of AVs, providing empirical data that individuals perceive and assign liability differently to AV collisions compared to collisions involving traditional vehicles. These findings hold practical implications for legislation concerning AVs.

Language: ko