Autonomous cars will drastically decrease the number of cars on the road. It will be about 10 minutes from "First fully autonomous car on the roads" to "First fully autonomous Uber car on the roads". And before that time even comes about tons of people will already be ride-sharing Ubers to reduce the cost. With more cars for faster pickups, a lower price because no driver is being paid, and with an extra open seat because of no driver, the use of ride-share Uber/Lyft/Taxi's will skyrocket and the number of cars on the road will drop significantly.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Should Autonomous Vehicles Kill Pedestrians Or Passengers?
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
Autonomous cars will drastically decrease the number of cars on the road. It will be about 10 minutes from "First fully autonomous car on the roads" to "First fully autonomous Uber car on the roads". And before that time even comes about tons of people will already be ride-sharing Ubers to reduce the cost. With more cars for faster pickups, a lower price because no driver is being paid, and with an extra open seat because of no driver, the use of ride-share Uber/Lyft/Taxi's will skyrocket and the number of cars on the road will drop significantly.
EchtoGammut
2[H]4U
- Joined
- May 7, 2007
- Messages
- 4,055
I can't wait for class based car decision making. If you in a Mercedes E-Class or better, the car will prioritize you, if you are in a C (non AMG) or lower, it will prioritize the crowd. The newest E class has even introduced classy crashing. It emits a sound to relax your neck muscles and is designed to minimize the noise of a crash, to make your crashing experience as pleasant as possible. 
Wolf_Tech
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2010
- Messages
- 231
Why I drive a Camaro. This baby is mine her name is Lisa and I love her.
twonunpackmule
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2005
- Messages
- 1,700
I think it should be an option. Like, when you get in the car it asks, "Do you want to kill anyone today?" You can then specify, "Yes." Then go through a selection of options; Old Ladies, Cats, Slow Walkers...etc.
Darunion
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2010
- Messages
- 5,321
"KITT, turboboost mode!" (jumps over the other car).
Self-Reliant, rugged individualistic, manly men will not ever consider riding in a self-driving car as their personal vehicle.
"Red Barchetta"
My uncle has a country place
That no one knows about
He says it used to be a farm
Before the Motor Law
And on Sundays I elude the eyes
And hop the Turbine Freight
To far outside the Wire
Where my white-haired uncle waits
Jump to the ground
As the Turbo slows to cross the borderline
Run like the wind
As excitement shivers up and down my spine
Down in his barn
My uncle preserved for me an old machine
For fifty odd years
To keep it as new has been his dearest dream
I strip away the old debris
That hides a shining car
A brilliant red Barchetta
From a better vanished time
I fire up the willing engine
Responding with a roar
Tires spitting gravel
I commit my weekly crime
Wind
In my hair
Shifting and drifting
Mechanical music
Adrenaline surge...
Well-weathered leather
Hot metal and oil
The scented country air
Sunlight on chrome
The blur of the landscape
Every nerve aware
Suddenly ahead of me
Across the mountainside
A gleaming alloy air car
Shoots towards me, two lanes wide
I spin around with shrieking tires
To run the deadly race
Go screaming through the valley
As another joins the chase
Drive like the wind
Straining the limits of machine and man
Laughing out loud with fear and hope
I've got a desperate plan
At the one-lane bridge
I leave the giants stranded at the riverside
Race back to the farm
To dream with my uncle at the fireside.
"Red Barchetta"
My uncle has a country place
That no one knows about
He says it used to be a farm
Before the Motor Law
And on Sundays I elude the eyes
And hop the Turbine Freight
To far outside the Wire
Where my white-haired uncle waits
Jump to the ground
As the Turbo slows to cross the borderline
Run like the wind
As excitement shivers up and down my spine
Down in his barn
My uncle preserved for me an old machine
For fifty odd years
To keep it as new has been his dearest dream
I strip away the old debris
That hides a shining car
A brilliant red Barchetta
From a better vanished time
I fire up the willing engine
Responding with a roar
Tires spitting gravel
I commit my weekly crime
Wind
In my hair
Shifting and drifting
Mechanical music
Adrenaline surge...
Well-weathered leather
Hot metal and oil
The scented country air
Sunlight on chrome
The blur of the landscape
Every nerve aware
Suddenly ahead of me
Across the mountainside
A gleaming alloy air car
Shoots towards me, two lanes wide
I spin around with shrieking tires
To run the deadly race
Go screaming through the valley
As another joins the chase
Drive like the wind
Straining the limits of machine and man
Laughing out loud with fear and hope
I've got a desperate plan
At the one-lane bridge
I leave the giants stranded at the riverside
Race back to the farm
To dream with my uncle at the fireside.
Wolf_Tech
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2010
- Messages
- 231
Funny you mention Red Barchetta Since my car is in Canada.
It looks as though most people believe that it is okay to sacrifice passengers lives in order to save pedestrian lives...but only if they aren't in the car. I find it odd that the graphic below doesn't feature a "Mustang option" where the autonomous car just plows into the crowd.
When it becomes possible to program decision-making based on moral principles into machines, will self-interest or the public good predominate? In a series of surveys, Bonnefon et al. found that even though participants approve of autonomous vehicles that might sacrifice passengers to save others, respondents would prefer not to ride in such vehicles (see the Perspective by Greene). Respondents would also not approve regulations mandating self-sacrifice, and such regulations would make them less willing to buy an autonomous vehicle.
I think these brainiacs need to stop trying to play God. I would not expect the machine to do much more than I would do in the same situation, try not to hit anything if I can help it, if I must hit something, do all I can to soften to blow, and no I am not going to make a sacrificial play cogitating that the lives of the many outweigh the lives of the few.
Look, when the shit happens people just react and not always in the best way. But regardless of how well they pull off their brilliant move, their intent is usually understandable given the circumstances even if the results fall short of that intent. I do not think we should try and make the machines do more than what a human would do, just try to do it better.
Let me explain. Presented with a surprise, like sudden awareness that I am about to run over a kid on a bicycle, the average driver will try to avoid hitting the kid. The law of averages takes a wild divergence when it comes to "how" the driver tries to avoid hitting the kid. Let's just translate it to computer options;
A. Do nothing, continue on course, hit the kid .... probably not the best option.
B. Slam on the breaks while limiting the ability to turn, Hey, ABS is pretty good but it isn't perfect, there will be an effect, hope for the best, (typical human reaction, freak and slam the breaks while concurrently screaming OMG !).
C. Break, avoid hitting the kid, hit anything else except a human if you can, hit nothing at all if possible, (this one is pretty damn good).
D. Calculate trajectory and other factors and simply, steer around the kid and hit nothing at all. (This is a tough one and would take balls of steel, if you pull it off your ready for NASCAR, you blow it and the lack of skid marks from breaking will probably not go well in court).
So out of these examples, all of which represent a range of possible human reactions, some look better than others. But although a human would make a rapid decision to do one of these, and then do their best, feeble attempt or otherwise, to pull it off, the machine can go farther. These people want to go beyond this and calculate probable outcomes and this is something humans do only in the most rudimentary sense. Our reactions are instinctual and they are effected by how threatened we feel vs the perceived outcome of what might happen.
Replace that bycicle with a head on collision with a garbage truck and your options narrow to;
A. "Don't fucking faceplant yourself on the grill of that monster!".
B. "Don't fucking faceplant yourself on the grill of that monster!".
C. "Don't fucking faceplant yourself on the grill of that monster!".
D. "Don't fucking faceplant yourself on the grill of that monster!".
All other considerations irrelevant.
If these brainiacs want to take on making the machine mack "better choices" than a human would understandably make, it's on them. I'd be happy if they just had the car do what I would do, but with more style and grace.
Darunion
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2010
- Messages
- 5,321
What if it gets programmed by the type of people that swerve into a ditch to avoid hitting a squirrel?
Darunion
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2010
- Messages
- 5,321
And I still feel that a communications network would solve most scenarios. When the two cars can agree on reactions they can lessen the risk, kind of like flying and go down and right as a rule.
Carouselambra
Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2014
- Messages
- 559
I feel like asking someone what they would do in a situation and the person's actions in that same situation are not the same. When your life is in danger, most people would not be the martyr. People like to think they are the hero of their own story but when it comes down to it, we have an overwhelming desire for self preservation.
People barely let someone merge into their own lane without flipping out. Now everyone says they would die for a group of strangers. I'm skeptical..
I will never own an autonomous car willingly if there is a system in place that does not ALWAYS favor the passenger/s.
People barely let someone merge into their own lane without flipping out. Now everyone says they would die for a group of strangers. I'm skeptical..
I will never own an autonomous car willingly if there is a system in place that does not ALWAYS favor the passenger/s.
I think it's valid to consider situations like these but in reality such a no win scenario is unlikely. I believe autonomous vehicles will come with the benefit of more efficient traffic patterns and less chaos as well as slower driving and more consideration of long-range targets/objects.
There's no need to slam on the brakes when the car is able to interpret pedestrians close to the road with trajectories indicating motion toward the path of the vehicle. For instance, in my experience many drivers (especially those who hit deer) will continue driving at a constant speed despite the presence of deer on the side of the road. This could be due to not recognizing the object as a deer (movable object) or because the driver thinks "oh well it's not in the way so I'll keep going". The reality is that deer will fucking jump in front of you with no notice. Additionally the presence of a single deer means there are likely several others in the vicinity that you don't see. I've avoided hitting deer at least a half dozen times by recognizing that the fact that a single deer not in the road does not mean it's safe to continue at the current speed. This is the kind of thing autonomous cars will have to consider. I think many people will be annoyed with a car that drives slowly [read: defensively] but this will be outweighed by the fact that you won't actually have to drive the thing.
There's no need to slam on the brakes when the car is able to interpret pedestrians close to the road with trajectories indicating motion toward the path of the vehicle. For instance, in my experience many drivers (especially those who hit deer) will continue driving at a constant speed despite the presence of deer on the side of the road. This could be due to not recognizing the object as a deer (movable object) or because the driver thinks "oh well it's not in the way so I'll keep going". The reality is that deer will fucking jump in front of you with no notice. Additionally the presence of a single deer means there are likely several others in the vicinity that you don't see. I've avoided hitting deer at least a half dozen times by recognizing that the fact that a single deer not in the road does not mean it's safe to continue at the current speed. This is the kind of thing autonomous cars will have to consider. I think many people will be annoyed with a car that drives slowly [read: defensively] but this will be outweighed by the fact that you won't actually have to drive the thing.
No, but it learns. Put a human brain into similar situations repeatedly and train it and it can do a damn bit better than the default.
I used to ride dirt bikes a lot. I had a lot of experience. I was riding in sand dunes and there was a hill with a trail. The trail peaked on a shoulder of the hill and it was a nice little ramp, I was thinking I could get some pretty good air coming off that peak and was setting up to hit it pretty good .... and I had a thought ..... what if someone is coming up from the other side ....... and I did not give the throttle the crank I was setting up for ..... instead I stood up on the bike to get as good a view as I could before the crest .... and there was my niece on the 3-wheeled Honda coming up exactly as my brain had predicted and warned .......her eyes are getting really big ........ I cranked the bike to the right .... a sharper bump .... ohhh I am getting some real air now ...... I am coming off the bike ..... my hands still on the grips ...... I am letting go ..... maybe I will not land on the bike ....... I am coming down on the bike ... my back is hitting the handlebars and rack over the front fender .... I am laying across the front of the bike .... bouncing now .... I am bouncing in front of the bike .... the bike is running me over ........ and I am rolling in the sand, the bike is in front of me stopped. Time returns to normal, my niece is fine, I never touched her. I'm a little bruised, the bike is fine, just a scare.
Had I reacted any other way I don't think things would have worked out so well, and worse case was me ignoring the warning and slamming over that hill and landing right on top of her with 500 lbs of bike and rider doing 25+ MPH and an oblivious smile on my face as I crush the life out of her.
Driving cars is no different. If a person never ever plays and learns what their car can and can't do, and themselves as well, the "correct" options will not come to mind and they will have no experience to guide them to a correct course of action. No one does well at what they have no experience doing.
I'm not saying a machine can't do it better. I am saying people can do better but don't.
It looks as though most people believe that it is okay to sacrifice passengers lives in order to save pedestrian lives...but only if they aren't in the car. I find it odd that the graphic below doesn't feature a "Mustang option" where the autonomous car just plows into the crowd.
When it becomes possible to program decision-making based on moral principles into machines, will self-interest or the public good predominate? In a series of surveys, Bonnefon et al. found that even though participants approve of autonomous vehicles that might sacrifice passengers to save others, respondents would prefer not to ride in such vehicles (see the Perspective by Greene). Respondents would also not approve regulations mandating self-sacrifice, and such regulations would make them less willing to buy an autonomous vehicle.
Both.
Twisted Kidney
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2013
- Messages
- 4,099
These words are true about so very many things we do.
SeymourGore
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2008
- Messages
- 4,429
They should be more concerned with making automobiles fly than making them autonomous. That can come after.
Also, I was pleasantly surprised to see some Rush lyrics thrown into this thread.
Also, I was pleasantly surprised to see some Rush lyrics thrown into this thread.
Darunion
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2010
- Messages
- 5,321
*starts listening to Jesus Take the Wheel*
though participants approve of autonomous vehicles that might sacrifice passengers to save others, respondents would prefer not to ride in such vehicles
Here is what this means..It means "I don't want to look like an asshole who values their own life above others, but really I do value my own life above others".
I'll say it outright..I value my own life above others. I will never willingly ride in a car that I know has enough control to make the decision to kill me vs someone else.
You are seriously underestimating how stupid people can be. I don't care how "Good" the autonomous car is, there will be people who walk out in front of them without it having nearly enough space to react. There is no such thing as "Idiot proof", all that means to some people is challenge accepted.
Here is what this means..It means "I don't want to look like an asshole who values their own life above others, but really I do value my own life above others".
I'll say it outright..I value my own life above others. I will never willingly ride in a car that I know has enough control to make the decision to kill me vs someone else.
You are seriously underestimating how stupid people can be. I don't care how "Good" the autonomous car is, there will be people who walk out in front of them without it having nearly enough space to react. There is no such thing as "Idiot proof", all that means to some people is challenge accepted.
In looking at all 3 of those situations....one must ask themselves;
"What would a NY Cab Driver do??"
but seriously..wouldn't a self driving car like that have a pretty decent range to detect obstacles in the road if driving the legal speed limit?
The automated car should also be able to shoot darts that stick in to the idiots illegally crossing the road with a citation attached = )
Or would that be too Death Race 2000?
"What would a NY Cab Driver do??"
but seriously..wouldn't a self driving car like that have a pretty decent range to detect obstacles in the road if driving the legal speed limit?
The automated car should also be able to shoot darts that stick in to the idiots illegally crossing the road with a citation attached = )
Or would that be too Death Race 2000?
This may apply in some, or even in most situations. But you have to know that there are some situations that unfold in a manner that no amount of "responsible" driving can avoid.
I have a real life example. A young man was driving home to his sister's birthday. He was driving under the speed limit, he was not driving distracted, cell phones had not been invented yet. His vehicle was an older sedan, a 1976 New Yorker. The roads were good, no water, etc. It was early evening, 6ish, but winter and the sun was down. The road was a divided lane going under a highway overpass, and the divide roadway merged back together on the other side. Convenience store on the right, apartment complex on the left with a golf course beyond that also on the left. Light traffic.
As the driver passed underneath the over pass and the road angled to the left to mate up with the opposing lanes eliminating the divided roadway the angle of the road put the lights from the golf course into his line of sight, they were very bright lights and made it hard to see well. That little "jog" in the road also allowed his own headlights to illuminate things that were not lit previously. Suddenly he realized he was seeing light reflecting from a metal mesh, a square grid .... like a shopping cart. He started breaking but it was close, and the car maneuvered like a pig, and now he could see darker shapes next to the cart. Two kids, thumps, the windshield shatters and another shape rolls along the side of the car. The shopping car was not actually hit but it is spun out into the opposing lanes and on coming traffic as the young driver tries to regain control of his vehicle.
I was 20 years old.
I bounced an 8 year old girl off my windshield that night and killed her. Her 6 year old brother lived but had a hole in his hip where my driver's side mirror ripped into him. Their younger sibling was inside the shopping cart which miraculously was never actually hit and that child was unhurt. I got out of my car, saw other people running to respond to the hurt kids so I ran inside the convenience store to make sure 911 was called. The clerk had me sit down where I went into shock and remember nothing more until waking in the hospital the next day. I was not charged. It was ruled an accident. I wasn't doing anything wrong. Those children should never have been on that road, no adults with them. In those days, parents were not charged for such things. "Accidents" were seen as punishment enough I suppose.
But that night changed my life. I know it wasn't my fault but I still can't dodge the hard truth that I was the one driving the car and I did kill that little girl. I barely managed to live with myself then. If anything like that happened again I know I wouldn't be able to take it.
Some might say I am an aggressive driver today. I am always on it. I "play", I know what I can do in my car. How fast I can stop, what kind of turn or move I can make. I do not own "pig" cars any more. My cars move, react, and don't "wallow" around when I demand something from them. I've been on the loosing end of a no win situation and I can tell you that my experience is that sometimes there will be only losers and there is just nothing you can do .... except prepare as best you can. if you think I haven't gone over a couple of "maybe ifs" then you haven't experienced anything like this. The biggest one was "maybe if I hadn't hit the brakes so hard, maybe I could have steered the car farther to the right" "Maybe if my car had been better, lighter, quicker.......maybe if I'd had more experience".
But it was what it was. It is what it is. The parents sued, the insurance company settled, I had to pay $600 every 3 months for insurance until the accident sorta fell off the Insurance company's RADAR. I can't call my kid sister on her birthdays. And we all have to live with what it is.
You do not want it to be you. There was a shoe in the road.
Actually, swerving at a high-ish rate of speed into a wall or curb like that will many times cause a vehicle to flip multiple times. How are you going to have the stupid autonomous car control that?
Well then, I say the only solution is to strap everybody into autonomous wheelchairs that can go a max of 5mph. No pedestrians, no drivers. Problem solved.
As for me, if there are one or more "pedestrians" jumping out in the middle of the road and I don't have time to stop without endangering myself or passengers with me, the "pedestrian(s)" are the ones that are going to get plowed into. At that point, it is completely their choice/fault and I will have absolutely no guilt hitting idiots because I had no other choice to ensure my/my passengers safety.
Darunion
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2010
- Messages
- 5,321
Actually, swerving at a high-ish rate of speed into a wall or curb like that will many times cause a vehicle to flip multiple times. How are you going to have the stupid autonomous car control that?
Well then, I say the only solution is to strap everybody into autonomous wheelchairs that can go a max of 5mph. No pedestrians, no drivers. Problem solved.
As for me, if there are one or more "pedestrians" jumping out in the middle of the road and I don't have time to stop without endangering myself or passengers with me, the "pedestrian(s)" are the ones that are going to get plowed into. At that point, it is completely their choice/fault and I will have absolutely no guilt hitting idiots because I had no other choice to ensure my/my passengers safety.
You are the kind of person that probably shouldn't be allowed to drive. It could easily be argued that you hope for such a scenario which makes you a bit sick and should honestly sit and talk to a dr about this. You are a danger as you will prioritize hitting someone you deem stupid instead of processing and finding a solution to a bad situation.
Gigus Fire
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2004
- Messages
- 2,275
Honestly this scenario with autonomous cars is a bit silly.
It's a computer. Who's to say that there can't be sensors at intersections or along the road that detect when there are objects in it so that the computer can receive that information and adjust speed or position to go around it.
The idea that an autonomous car must only operate with the same limitations as a human driver who has to only rely on their senses to react to conditions isn't a realistic one.
You can also have other autonomous vehicles communicate with each other, thus providing a network grid of cars.
Also the idea of speed limits should go away at this point. The computer/autonomous driver should know of road conditions and weather which it then can decide what the maximum safe speed limit should be.
It's a computer. Who's to say that there can't be sensors at intersections or along the road that detect when there are objects in it so that the computer can receive that information and adjust speed or position to go around it.
The idea that an autonomous car must only operate with the same limitations as a human driver who has to only rely on their senses to react to conditions isn't a realistic one.
You can also have other autonomous vehicles communicate with each other, thus providing a network grid of cars.
Also the idea of speed limits should go away at this point. The computer/autonomous driver should know of road conditions and weather which it then can decide what the maximum safe speed limit should be.
Is it worse that cyclone3d posted this right after mine?
Darunion
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2010
- Messages
- 5,321
Yea, I have been fortunate thus far to not have experienced it. For someone to say they would feel nothing is a terrifying thought that they are in control of a vehicle out on roads I drive on.
Yea that is a bit rough. I couldn't imagine how that would feel. It was bad enough witnessing someone else hitting a child. It was a weird feeling because I had this chill and then looked in my rear view and watched a kid run out from parked cars and roll over the top of a moving car that did not see him.
Yea that is a bit rough. I couldn't imagine how that would feel. It was bad enough witnessing someone else hitting a child. It was a weird feeling because I had this chill and then looked in my rear view and watched a kid run out from parked cars and roll over the top of a moving car that did not see him.
Too many people are in a "rush" to surrender their free will to a mindless software controlled car...
I'd be lying if I told you that I don't have a little self pity thing going, or that I can tell if it's because I really feel a little victimized or if it's just me trying to cope with guilt.
So I'm going to lunch.
P4B
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2012
- Messages
- 336
is this a break fail or production fail that they are trying to get a pass on?
Don't worry, someone somewhere will have an autonomous car kill a kid in a wheelchair and autonomous cars & car talk will disappear for 5 years.No offense but, are we going to get this exact same news recycled every 3 months or so?... just saying, this isn't the first time this has been discussed, and by this, i mean the exact same question
That's a hell of a story and you are rather brave to put it out there.
As you say, shit happens and there are occasional unavoidable accidents.
As for what happened to you, in an ideal situation with an automated car, the car would know how fast it can stop, and it would know how far its sensors can sense and plan its speed accordingly. For a blind bridge-covered curve, the automated car would slow down to a safe speed and would have been able to stop as soon as it sensed the kids in the road. Us humans don't like to slow down at all (like 25 in a school zone) as we are always in a hurry, and red lights piss us off. I figure once automated cars take over, red lights will dynamically change based on optimum throughput and our trips will be so much shorter, that driving safe speeds won't even bother us.
Darunion
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2010
- Messages
- 5,321
Red lights would be irrelevant if all vehicles were automated. Traffic could adapt to allow crossing pedestrians dynamically. Yes this is all ideas for a near perfect system, it will be rough for a while. Yes there will be mishaps but I feel overall vehicle accidents would be drastically reduced. I can't remember exactly but isn't it approximately 100ms for an average brain to react to new information? That is a long lag time in a game I can only imagine what could be accomplished if a driver had 1/4 of that lag not to mention 360degree views without possibly being distracted.
If there are no good options just slam on brakes, problem solved. All of these hypothetical situations always start in a bad position.. how do you get in such bad position? Something has already gone wrong. If things are are already going wrong, hitting brakes is best thing to do.
Nafensoriel
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2015
- Messages
- 382
This dilemma is kind of moot. The entire idea assumes that the sensory input and processing speed available to the car can only react in a humans manner.
This is a computer. With near lightspeed sensory perception and thousands of parallel functions per microsecond.
It takes the average car 150 ish feet to physically stop once its brakes are pressed from 60 mph. Pick one road segment that has a shorter distance than this visually from the perspective of the driver. In normal operator conditions you will never have an issue with the car being forced to choose between hitting a pedestrian in the road or stopping.. The car can simply slow down or stop entirely when it detects the obstruction in its path. Yes this might mean an entire highway dropping to 15mph when a rabbit jumps across the road.. but so what? It's the situation that protects people and property without compromise.
In situations where there is not 150 feet to brake to a full stop... well that's what we call bad road management and the speed in that area should be reduced to accommodate the operators limited visibility of the road ahead.
This is over regulation for regulation sake and will solve exactly zero issues with autonomous vehicles. I hate it when people automatically assume the vehicle is at fault for all accidents. Sometimes its just bad road design forcing operators into bad choices.
/edit Speelinggud.
This is a computer. With near lightspeed sensory perception and thousands of parallel functions per microsecond.
It takes the average car 150 ish feet to physically stop once its brakes are pressed from 60 mph. Pick one road segment that has a shorter distance than this visually from the perspective of the driver. In normal operator conditions you will never have an issue with the car being forced to choose between hitting a pedestrian in the road or stopping.. The car can simply slow down or stop entirely when it detects the obstruction in its path. Yes this might mean an entire highway dropping to 15mph when a rabbit jumps across the road.. but so what? It's the situation that protects people and property without compromise.
In situations where there is not 150 feet to brake to a full stop... well that's what we call bad road management and the speed in that area should be reduced to accommodate the operators limited visibility of the road ahead.
This is over regulation for regulation sake and will solve exactly zero issues with autonomous vehicles. I hate it when people automatically assume the vehicle is at fault for all accidents. Sometimes its just bad road design forcing operators into bad choices.
/edit Speelinggud.
All that may be. In my case it wasn't a blind curve, it was just two lane traffic going each way going from a divided media to no median or center lane, so the distance between lanes went away. You wouldn't think it would make much of a difference but they were far enough apart that my headlights didn't light up the kids until the lanes angled in toward each other to eliminate the median area, but this also put the golf course lights in my eyes and cut down the visibility at a really crucial moment. Add to that the date, 1979, cars didn't have the lights they have today. Hell cars from the late 70's aren't even in the same league as todays machines. I can understand why someone might want to drive a classic all the time right up until you actually have to do it, and then reality should set in for that person and some common sense take over.
The thing is, I always come back to asking myself this one question.
What were two young children doing, pushing a baby in a shopping cart, across four lanes of 50 MPH traffic, at night?
Now if you can come up with an answer that's better than "God works in mysterious ways" than I am all ears. Since that one doesn't hold much water for me any more, I hope you'll understand that "Shit happens" is all I have been able to come up with.
I agree that technology, properly implemented, should hold great promise for us. But understand that when I see people arguing over making decisions like the one in this article, I'm think not one of them has ever had to live with such a thing in their own lives and that they may not be the people we actually need to program those decisions.
I'm sorry, but I'll go with James T. Kirk on this one, "I don't believe in the No Win Scenario" and until these people can come up with a way to avoid hurting anyone, they need to stay out of this part of the decision making game cause it's not a fucking game. They do not really know the consequences of their moralizing. They are planning and deciding in advance who they are going to choose to kill. Between now and they day they can eliminate roadway deaths entirely, they need to limit their game to accident avoidance period, they do that well enough the other one will become a reality all by itself.
Ummm, right. No I don't hope for that kind of scenario. But if it comes to that, I will protect myself and my passengers if at all possible.
I have watched a whole bunch of car crash videos and seen a large number of crashes in them where the driver swerved to try to avoid hitting somebody that ran out in the road. A lot of the time they ended up in a really horrible looking crash, and/or flipped their vehicle multiple times.
In my opinion, it is more dangerous to swerve in order to try to miss hitting a jaywalker than it is to just hit the brakes and hope the idiot is able to move out of the way before you hit them.
I also don't swerve for animals anymore. After so many times of possibly getting in a wreck it is just not worth it anymore. If an animal runs out in the road, I will brake if I definitely have enough room to stop and I definitely will not cause somebody to run into the back of my vehicle.. If not, then they get plowed over if they don't get out of the way in time. My safety and the safety of my passengers as well as the safety of others on the road is way more important than some stupid animal that runs out in the road.
Since I have started driving over 20 years ago, I have been in one accident... where somebody pulled out in front of me and stopped in the middle of the road.
I am a pretty safe and defensive driver.
edit: I have personally driven well over 400,000 miles.
Stereodude
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2000
- Messages
- 3,285
FWIW, I'd argue the car has an obligation to protect the occupants of the vehicle from serious injury as priority. If they don't people won't buy them. But, it's a tough question with no real easy answers.