'That's just weird': A qualitative investigation into expert opinions on the difference between autonomous vehicles and humans deciding to kill

Autonomous vehicles (AVs) are rapidly developing and in the process of being deployed on public roads. This has sparked extensive discussions on the ethics of AVs, particularly in collision scenarios. While much quantitative research has been done, little qualitative research has been conducted and none on the ethical opinions of experts who are actually responsible for developing, deploying, and regulating AVs on public roads. Making use of qualitative research methods, 46 experts were interviewed to obtain rich data on their ethical opinions of AVs deciding to kill human beings. Following thematic analysis, three overarching themes were identified: 1) Experts feel humans ultimately will be responsible for how AVs behave in collision scenarios. 2) AVs decisions lack important human characteristics such as 'gut feelings, emotions, or intuition' and would make uniformed decisions which do not reflect human decisions. 3) Some experts did have a preference for AVs making decisions in life and death situations. The paper ultimately concludes that experts who are responsible for how AVs are designed, deployed, and regulated hold complex opinions on the ethics of AVs making life and death decisions. Considering the public's legitimate interest in this domain, far more work is needed to unify the ethical opinions of experts on the ethics of AVs in collision scenarios.