Ghost Ride 2.0 (Part 2): Should Autonomous Vehicles Like Waymo Be Armed?

In Part 1 of Ghost Ride 2.0, I explored the rise of vandalism targeting Waymo’s autonomous vehicles (AVs) in California. These humanless vehicles, operating entirely free of humans, hold the promise of revolutionizing transportation with safer roads, increased mobility, and reduced congestion.?

Waymo and its parent company, Google, likely never fully accounted for the complexities of the human-autonomous relationship, which has led to a growing backlash—highlighting how this technological leap has introduced unforeseen challenges. As AVs navigate the streets of cities like San Francisco, Oakland, and Los Angeles—and prepare to expand into Chicago, New York, Miami, and Atlanta—a darker reality has emerged: targeted acts of vandalism and violence. From tire-slashing, intentional collisions, arson, and mob attacks, defacing to instances of empty Waymo vehicles being shot at, these incidents reveal a growing tension between AV technology and public sentiment. Autonomous vehicles have become symbols of disruption—threatening traditional jobs, reshaping urban landscapes, and fueling fears about safety and control.

This troubling trend raises a provocative yet urgent question for the future of autonomous transportation: Should humanless vehicles be allowed to defend themselves?

Beyond Asimov: Three Laws of Autonomous Vechiles

Isaac Asimov’s Three Laws of Robotics inspires a framework for AV behavior:

1. An autonomous vehicle cannot harm a person or allow harm through inaction.
2. An autonomous vehicle must protect its passengers at all costs unless doing so violates the First Law.
3. An autonomous vehicle must protect its own existence as long as this does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.

These principles prioritize human safety—both passengers and pedestrians—while allowing limited self-preservation when it does not endanger people.

Lessons from the Moral Machine Study

The Moral Machine study in 2016 explored global ethical preferences for AV decision-making during unavoidable accidents. Results revealed biases based on cultural norms and physical traits, highlighting the complexity of programming universal ethics into machines. The study reminds us that even humans struggle with consistent moral decision-making—making ethical programming for AVs an immense challenge.

Non-Lethal Defense: Insights from Retired General Arnold Gordon-Bray

To explore the question of autonomous vehicle self-defense, I turned to retired Brigadier General Arnold Gordon-Bray, whose career has been marked by significant experience in the field of unmanned vehicles.” General Bray emphasizes the importance of non-lethal tactics:

“In the civilian world, lethal defense options should never be the default—especially for technologies designed to coexist with humans on our streets. However, non-lethal tactics could serve as effective deterrents in specific cases, such as protecting minors or vulnerable passengers.”

Non-lethal measures like alarms, evasive maneuvers, or automated law enforcement alerts could help AVs navigate hostile situations without escalating violence.

Practical Alternatives to Weaponization

Instead of arming AVs, companies like Waymo could focus on advanced defensive technologies:

1. Threat Detection Systems: Sensors to identify hostile behavior early enough to reroute safely. Additionally, an external speaker can issue warnings to potential vandals, announcing that any vandalism attempts will be recorded and reported to authorities.
2. Automated Emergency Protocols: Alerts to law enforcement and onboard evidence recording during attacks.
3. Reinforced Physical Design: Shatterproof glass and durable materials to minimize damage.
4. Community Engagement: Transparent communication about AV benefits and safety measures.
5. Cybersecurity Measures: Strong encryption and real-time threat monitoring to prevent cyberattacks.

Conclusion: A Call to Action for 2025

As vandalism against autonomous vehicles continues (and it truly will!), companies like Waymo faces an urgent question: how should these vehicles respond under attack? Rather than weaponizing humanless cars, AVs must prioritize non-lethal defensive measures aligned with ethical principles like the revised Three Laws of Robotics.

I will continue to evanglize that fostering public trust through transparency and innovation—and learning from studies like the Moral Machine—we can ensure safer streets while upholding humanity’s values.?

The future of autonomous vehicles depends on balancing progress with ethical responsibility. Today, let’s make the right choice for machines and society alike.