-
That's dumb. Fucking German engineering is bullshit. They must be using the same coders we have to deal with to come up with that reasoning..
Why is there no dead man switch-type braking? It shouldn't be in that situation in the first place.
The other car is still likely to have better crash safety than a ped/cyclist so why not aim for that?
Also, if both cars are computer controlled, the can better adjust for safest impact, ie. side to side vs. head on and if one is completely out of control, the other could at least move into the safest position or attempt avoidance.
And the robocar thread is over there, noob >>>
cough MERGE cough
hippy-
cough MERGE cough
Glad you mentioned that. Didn't have the guts :)
-
And the robocar thread is over there, noob
Yeah, but this is about a specific company acting in a specific way that should trigger a reaction/awareness/campaign against them.
I'm in favour of self-driving cars, but not the implementation of the wrong solution to this ethical problem.
skydancer
Velocio
There is a classic ethical problem called the Trolley Problem, and you can read about it here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem .
The gist of it is a tram on rails, hurtling out of control down a street, in front of you are 5 pedestrians, and you have the choice to pull a lever and send the tram on a different line in which it will collide with another tram killing the 1 occupant of the tram, or to not pull the lever and let it kill the 5 pedestrians and in doing so save the occupant.
Do you pull the lever or not? Do you get involved at all, and if so by how much?
Lots of arguing has gone on about this problem, and you can try thinking about it yourself.
How it relates to self-driving cars... what should a car do when it foresees a situation in which it is unavoidable that someone will die, an occupant of the vehicle versus a person outside the car (pedestrian, cyclist, etc)?
Mercedes Benz are the first to break cover on this dilemma, Mercedes Benz have decided that their cars will always prioritise car occupants over those outside the vehicle: http://blog.caranddriver.com/self-driving-mercedes-will-prioritize-occupant-safety-over-pedestrians/
I believe that this is the opposite of what other road users, and city inhabitants want.
I believe that self-driving cars should be so significantly safer than manual drive for the car occupants that the danger (such that it exists) should be born by those who chose to acquire and use such a vehicle.
I believe that self-driving cars should never prioritise externalising danger onto other people in the vicinity, be it pedestrians, cyclists or other vehicle drivers and passengers.
I believe that if there is a scenario in which externalised danger is unavoidable, then self-driving cars need to act predictably to minimise the externalisation as much as possible even at the cost of the occupant.
Thankfully this is at an early stage, but I think we should mobilise parts of Sustrans, CTC, LCC, and individuals to ensure that the Mayor's office, and other notable people with authority, are informed of the risks and take steps to prevent vehicles that chose to externalise danger from operating within built-up areas.