Cars are fast becoming computers with wheels attached. What are the technical, ethical and legal issues involved? What is the way forward?

1. How much “tech” is too much tech?
Achal Raghavan
14 October 2021
In recent months, the world has been trying to cope with a shortage of chips – of the semiconductor
kind. Much of products we use in daily life – cars, computers, tablets, mobile phones, home
appliances, switches, gaming consoles, and so on – depend on these chips, connected by complex
circuitry and millions of lines of code. The consumer is faced with rising prices, supply shortages, and
restricted brand choices. Indications are that the shortages might ease only by end 2022, if at all.
The global automotive industry is a very visible casualty in this scenario. According to media reports,
the industry will suffer a production loss of 7.7. million cars (with a sale value of USD 210 billion) in
2021, primarily due to the chips crisis. How dependent is today’s car on computers, chips and lines
of code?
Cars, technology and computers
An article in IEEE Spectrum (7 Jun 2021), gives the following interesting information:
• Even a low-end vehicle uses nearly 100 electronic control units (ECUs) and 100 million lines
of code. In comparison, the state-of-the-art Lockheed Martin F-35 fighter jet, with all its
electronic warfare and surveillance capabilities, uses an estimated 25 million lines of code.
• Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu estimates that 40% of the cost of a new car in 2017 was due to
semiconductor-based electronic systems; this number is expected to climb to 50% by 2030.
In 1980, this was 10%.
• Features and model variants are driving this complexity. While safety-related features (e.g.
airbags, antilock braking systems (ABS), electronic stability control (ESC), collision prevention
devices, and so on) are becoming a standard “set” across models and variants, the add-ons
that provide extra features like comfort (think memory-based seat adjustment), convenience

2. (rain-sensing wipers, follow-me-home lights) and infotainment add to the electronic
complexity.
• The more the variants dictated by marketing needs, the more the challenge in dealing with
the writing, checking, testing, debugging and integrating all the millions of lines of code.
• The vehicle manufacturer does not write much of the code; roughly 90% is written by
multiple sub-system suppliers. All these coded systems have to be orchestrated and made to
behave as a single dependable entity. The OEM, which has this responsibility, has very little
visibility into all the code.
• Vehicle software now faces a new threat – of hacking and remote takeover by bad actors.
(Imagine getting a message on your mobile, asking you to deposit a tidy sum in bitcoins if
you want to use your nice expensive car again.)
• External communications (to and from the “connected car”) and the need for secure
software updates complicate the picture even more.
Two powerful emerging trends – one towards electric vehicles (EVs), and the other towards
autonomous self-driving vehicles using artificial intelligence (AI) – will possibly merge into a “EV+AI”
scenario.
This has existential implications for the automotive industry, which has to transform itself from
being an integrator of electro-mechanical sub-systems to an orchestrator of interconnected
computers which cannot fail. Automotive OEMs and their top management are going to need a
completely new set of core competencies that are focussed on software, system integration,
network connectivity, security firewalls and AI.
The distinction between the auto industry and the computer industry is beginning to blur. There are
unconfirmed reports about Apple getting into design and manufacture of an autonomous car,
possibly in partnership with an existing automotive OEM. Tesla has got over its initial hiccups with
respect to ramping up mass production, and is seeking pole position in the “EV+AI” space. More
players, no doubt, will be announcing their entry into this market sooner than later.
The OEM and the customer: Who is in the driver’s seat?
Where does all this leave the customer? Will they be better off? As the people who will ultimately be
paying for all this exciting technology, are they having a legitimate role in deciding on this new
direction? Or, are they being led willy-nilly by the OEM who is saying, “We know what’s good for
you. Just trust us, pay the money, and enjoy the ride”? In short, who is in the driver’s seat? (I do
recognise the irony in this question- there may not be a “driver’s seat” in the car of the future.)
How much “tech”?
Don’t get me wrong. I am not a technophobe, or a Luddite who wants to take a hammer to all this
exciting new stuff. I love cars, and I am an avid long-distance driver. Over the years, technology has
undoubtedly made the car safer, less polluting and more comfortable. But then, how much “tech” is
too much tech? Who will decide this important question?
Much of the tech transfer for the modern automobile came from the aerospace industry – collision
avoidance, navigation, GPS, engine management, drive-by-wire, stability control, digital displays, and
so on. However, there are stark differences between the aerospace and the automotive industries.
The pilot of a jet fighter or a commercial aircraft is a highly trained expert, backed by an extremely
sophisticated system of support, maintenance and repair. They get to update their knowledge and
skills at frequent intervals through specialised training and re-certification.

3. The car owner, on the other hand, is just an average citizen, “certified” once at the time of the
driving licence test. They do not get trained for model changes or upgrades. The car, unlike aircraft,
is not inspected before every drive. The support system, for the most part, is still reactive. And yet,
the modern sedan is packed with 100 million lines of code, as compared to 25 million lines in the F-
35 fighter jet. To rub it in further, in a delicious twist of advertising hype, the front part of the car’s
interior is now routinely called the “cockpit”; and the seat is now a “captain’s seat”.
So, are you ready for take-off, “Captain”? Or would you like to take a minute to think about where
all this technology is taking you?
Cars and tech: Two perspectives
I look at the ever-increasing use of technology in cars from two perspectives:
• Value proposition to the user, and
• Control and responsibility
Let me explore each of these with the help of Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 (see the top of the article).
Perspective #1: Value proposition: Fascination vs. frustration and risk
Customers are initially fascinated (Fig. 1) by the increasing technological sophistication of the car:
automatic operation of many things that you needed to do manually some time back – raise/lower
the window, lock/unlock the doors, adjust the air conditioning (“climate control”, indeed), turn the
wipers on, and so on. The customer feels that value is getting added with each of these features.
Comfort, convenience, and “smart” are the value proposition; increasing computerisation and
complexity are the price you pay. This is the “fascination zone”. On a parallel path, fuel economy and
safety-related enhancements like engine management, traction control systems, and the like add
clear value to the customer, and need to be seen as an essential part of the modern car.
However, as automotive computerisation marches on relentlessly, the value proposition – as per my
hypothesis – reaches the apex of the bell-curve, and starts going down. I believe we are pretty close
to that point now. Many of us are by now familiar with the distraction, frustration and indeed the
risk involved in keeping your eyes on the road while trying to touch that exact part of the touch
screen on the dashboard to trigger the AC or the music. Voice commands are equally distracting, and
add to the complexity of the hardware and software.
Hackers have already succeeded in breaking into cars’ computer systems from remote locations;
malicious code can be inserted into your system when you download a song or an app using the
car’s internet; the list goes on. How willing are you to live with this scenario? Were you even asked
for your opinion or consent before these “enhancements” for convenience were added?
In the next few years, the car owner is on track to becoming captive to a continuous stream of
“system updates” that she needs to keep downloading. This is difficult enough to do in a timely
manner when you are dealing with your smartphone; your car is in a different league altogether. The
consequences of missing a brake system update could be disastrous. Left unchecked, this trend
towards making a car a big cluster of computers on four wheels could result in the value proposition
dropping sharply – in the “frustration and risk” zone.
The software industry defends the frequent “bug fixes” and “system updates” that we get for our
mobile phone and laptop with the argument that the code-writers cannot anticipate each and every
scenario in which the product or program will operate; and so, fixes are issued when a new failure
mode is detected after the customer has started using the product.

4. Would this process be acceptable for a car weighing a tonne or more, moving at 80 kmph? What
about the “zero defect” “parts per million” “get it right first time” philosophy that the auto industry
swore by barely a few years ago? If your car has 100 million lines of code, what defect rate is
acceptable to you?
Perspective #2: Control and responsibility: Delegation vs. abdication
Fig. 2 represents my view of what happens to “responsibility”, when more and more technology and
computerisation is inserted into the car. As technology increases, the driver’s direct control and
sense of responsibility decreases. Initially, the trend line moves downwards in what I call the
“delegation zone” – where computerisation performs tasks delegated to it by the driver, such as
optimal fuel management, finding the best route to a destination, bringing the car to an emergency
stop (through the brake assist system) and so on. In this zone, the car’s systems are likely to perform
such tasks even better than the average driver can.
However, as this trend line continues, it slips into what I have named the “abdication zone” – where
the driver begins to let go of what happens with the car. Cambridge Dictionary defines “abdication”
as “the fact of no longer controlling or managing something that you are in charge of”. Instead of
augmenting and strengthening the capabilities of the driver – as in the “delegation zone”, this level
of technology begins to replace the driver. In other words, the driver has abdicated his or her role.
The Society of Automotive Engineering (SAE) has defined 6 levels of driving automation, ranging
from Level 0 (fully manual, where the human performs all driving tasks) to Level 5 (fully
autonomous, where the vehicle performs all driving tasks, under all conditions). Levels 0, 1 and 2
correspond to “driver support”. Levels 3, 4 and 5 correspond to “automated driving”, where the
human is not driving the car – even if seated in the so-called driver’s seat.
Moving into Levels 3, 4 and 5 raises a critical question: when a bad thing happens – say, a fatal
accident – who is morally and legally responsible? The driver, the owner, the automobile
manufacturer, the component sub-system vendor, the persons who wrote the millions of lines of
codes, all of the above, none of the above – the combinations are many. What is the chance that all
driving/traffic scenarios would always be anticipated by programmers, even assisted by machine
learning and AI? There are no clear answers.
In recent years, MIT has designed and run the “Moral Machine”, a fascinating platform that lets you
set up different scenarios of moral dilemmas that will arise when autonomous driving takes root. It
asks you to judge what the autonomous car should be programmed to do – kill two passengers in
the car, or five pedestrians on the road (for example).
Studies show that your answers to such moral dilemmas depend on your cultural roots and
upbringing. This raises an interesting question in ethical relativism: if you are an Indian travelling in a
self-driving car in Rome, will you do as Romans do, and let the car run on local software? Or, will you
download a “India pack” which is more aligned to your roots and values?
The road ahead
This has been a lengthy exploration of the various fundamental aspects involved in using more and
more tech and computerisation in cars. Let me conclude with some recommendations to the auto
industry, the regulators and the customer:

5. • Empower the Voice of the Customer (VOC): Make the customer an integral part of your new
product development and technology enhancement decisions – not a passive recipient of
“this is good for you” offerings.
• Proceed with caution: Limit technology application in the car to the “delegation zone”, and
stay away from the “abdication zone”, till we know more about the technical, ethical and
legal consequences of what we are doing.
• Adopt a “minimalist” approach to technology for the moment: Start chopping the millions
of lines of code down to the bare necessities. Make safety and emission-related technology
mandatory; but hold off for the moment on “good to have” glamorous features like
sunroofs, rain-sensing wipers, follow-me-home lights and automatic rear-view mirrors.
Leave touch screens to the tablet or the smart phone. Analog controls work perfectly well. In
short, simplify.
• Practise “informed consent”: Set up mechanisms for detailed communication between
manufacturers and users on the value that each “enhancement” brings, the additional cost,
and the risk it adds – so that the customers really know what they are signing up for.
• Go circular: Planned obsolescence is a no-no. Go green, go circular - with Design for
Environment (DfE) principles that make it possible to refurbish, re-use and retrofit the whole
car. The world is already overflowing with e-waste. Let’s not add to it.
How much “tech” is too much tech? It is decision time. Now.
Achal Raghavan
Bengaluru, INDIA
****