Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

1 results

  • 14 - Inevitable or Not?

  • from Part III - Human–Robot Interactions and Legal Narrative
  • Edited by Sabine Gless, Universität Basel, Switzerland, Helena Whalen-Bridge, National University of Singapore
  • Book:
    Human–Robot Interaction in Law and Its Narratives
    Published online:
    03 October 2024
    Print publication:
    29 August 2024, pp 311-334
    • Chapter
      • You have access
      • Open access
    • PDF
    • Export citation

  • Summary

    In Singapore, residents have expressed concerns about the safety of autonomous vehicles. This chapter considers the case of Singapore, which has supported the development of autonomous vehicles and tested their use. Using research studies and newspaper reports, the chapter examines the rhetorical devices used to frame relevant discussion and identifies the narrative arguments used to reduce fears and justify the presence of vehicles on public streets. The narratives of government and commercial entities complement each other and are frequently upbeat, but they differ in that commercial entities asserted the narrative that autonomous vehicles were inevitable, while government entities did not. The government’s rejection of inevitability supports a different view of law and government, in which government officials decide the degree and pace of AV development. However, Singapore has not adopted a strict regulatory approach, and opted instead for light touch regulation. As a narrative argument, rejection of inevitability does not dictate regulatory approach.