Should Autonomous Vehicles Kill Pedestrians Or Passengers?

And I agree with StereoDude. The car and it's passengers need to be the only thing the car is concerned with other than straight up accident avoidance. Like I say, if the car never hits anything why would it need to make any moralizing weighted decisions?
 
"Autonomous cars?!?! WE DON'T NEED NO STINKIN' AUTONOMOUS CARS!!!!" or words to that effect. ;)
 
lcpiper said:
if the car never hits anything why would it need to make any moralizing weighted decisions?
Click to expand...

Because the weighted choice that we are discussing in this thread is what to do if the car IS going to hit something. Herp Derp, read the first post.
 
I would think in the situation as picture the car would detect all those people and not be traveling at such a high rate of speed. Although in the case of a ton of rioters/people celebrating their local sports team victory... yeah if they sprint out into the street like that then they're getting killed.

That said, my view of autonomous cars has always been to have them operate in locations where there are no wild cards such as pedestrians, and that's the freeways/highways of the state. Now sure a great deal of you probably don't live where there's any sort of traffic, but for the rest of us who do live in very populated areas where commute traffic can be more than 1 hour per 20-30 miles, then autonomous cars need to be the rule not the exception. Have a single lane that's walled off with K-rail for people who are too stubborn to believe a car can drive themselves, and they can deal with their sluggish commute, while everyone else gets the other 2-3 lanes where autonomous cars can drive super close, and there's no backup just because one person hit the brakes and everyone else is retarded, and you can zoom to your destination off ramp. At which point this "departure bay" makes sure your ass is awake, then lets you drive on city streets.

Or go a step further, rebuild cities to have barriers preventing jaywalkers, have their precious sidewalks that are great for walking, and do not allow anyone to cross outside of a cross walk, and if they jump the rail and take a "short cut" then no need for special programming other than "try to stop, but if you can't don't hurt people who are following the rules"
 
ZodaEX said:
Because the weighted choice that we are discussing in this thread is what to do if the car IS going to hit something. Herp Derp, read the first post.
Click to expand...

Well quote my entire post and you'll have the rest of the answer.
 
lcpiper said:
Well quote my entire post and you'll have the rest of the answer.
Click to expand...


Actually I was answering the question that YOU asked. There is no need to try and give me an answer because I didn't ask a question lol.
 
ZodaEX said:
Actually I was answering the question that YOU asked. There is no need to try and give me an answer because I didn't ask a question lol.
Click to expand...

I wasn't actually asking a question. I was making a statement in the form of a question. I am sure there is some sort of English language name for such a thing, like maybe a rhetorical question.
 
My friend showed me this earlier today. Should the AV have decided to swerve to the right and possibly hit some stuff on the sidewalk causing damage, or plowed through that pedestrian...?

 
Not sure this is an either or, but they're posing the question that way. I, for one, would try to ensure the car didn't lose control, flip over, or move in to oncoming traffic. That said, that usually means the car is going to go straight so whatever is in front of me is getting the brunt of it. I also had a very young girl bounce off the side of my dad's car while I was driving it. She didn't die, but I see why they put the horn in the center of the steering wheel. It was a Chrysler when it was all the rage to put the horn buttons anywhere but the center of the wheel. And when you're white knuckled, trying to stop something from happening, your hand goes to the center of the wheel. Straight, more or less, driving though. It had been wet from rain, and I couldn't have the car lose control so she got the brunt of it.
 
if you are dumb enough to walk out in front of a large moving object without looking or caring, you are smart enough to pay the price.
 
yee245 said:
My friend showed me this earlier today. Should the AV have decided to swerve to the right and possibly hit some stuff on the sidewalk causing damage, or plowed through that pedestrian...?

Video/edit
Click to expand...

In that video the person violated pedestrian traffic laws and ran into a functional street. A computer could have isolated the persons predicted path and slowed the vehicles in the video to a stop long before impact.
In this case the human factor results in a collision where an automatic vehicle would have resulted in an illegal yet non incident causing situation.

Again as I pointed out earlier a computer will not impact people unless they are functionally committing suicide. Additionally even in situations where a person is attempting suicide by vehicle a computer is fast enough to actually reduce the likelihood of their success by breaking infinitely faster than a human ever possibly could.
 
yee245 said:
My friend showed me this earlier today. Should the AV have decided to swerve to the right and possibly hit some stuff on the sidewalk causing damage, or plowed through that pedestrian...?

Click to expand...



This isn't even a Question..This guy is a perfect example of what I said. In this case the AI should while attempting to stop still 100% plow the dumbass. The only unfortunate part of this video is the idiot walks away. Before anyone gets all mock offended at my disregard for human life, no sorry I don't view life as special, especially not morons like this.
 
You would have to be going ludicrously and illegally fast to be killed in a crash where you are in an area with high levels of pedestrian traffic. I was front ended by a speeding Truck with a front mounted bull bar a month back and i walked away without a scratch.
 
Why not some type of airbag system? If the vehicle senses an unavoidable pedestrian in it's path, it will apply the brakes as hard as safely possible and then deploy some type of external airbag right before impact to lessen the impact. The person that got hit would still be hurting, but probably not dead.
 
xLokiX said:
Why not some type of airbag system? If the vehicle senses an unavoidable pedestrian in it's path, it will apply the brakes as hard as safely possible and then deploy some type of external airbag right before impact to lessen the impact. The person that got hit would still be hurting, but probably not dead.
Click to expand...

Not a half bad idea. Also might be useful when collisions take place between cars too. Might dampen the blow. I question about what the bounce factor might be with a person. But I'm sure I'd choose the airbag every time over hard metal and glass.
 
Autonomous cars are the dumbest thing thought up in the last decade. Car manufacturers can barely go three months without some sort of massive safety recall for transmissions that don't work, fuel hoses that start fires, ignitions that cut off in the middle of traffic, throttle cables that get stuck, etc. And pretty much every modern piece of software needs an endless stream of patches for various stupid reasons because once you connect it to the internet, it's pretty much a matter of time until some 12 year old decides to break it for shits and giggles. And we want to combine the two? No thanks.
 
Autonomous cars will be programed for self preservation (aka saving the people in the car) for a few reasons. Predicting what some random pedestrian is going to do is almost impossible. Programing for that situation is basically impossible. This is really a non issue and I don't know why it keeps coming up.
 
IMO, the car's AI should only attempt to avoid pedestrians SAFELY. Change the direction as far as it can without hitting anything else, and the rest is just getting the car to stop as fast as it can.
Just like how a normal driver would react. I'm not going to swerve into something else just because someone crossed the road without looking. I'll just slam the brakes and hope my car can stop in time.

Nothing has to change IMO. The pedestrian's safety is still a concern of their own (as it is right now), while the car AI's priority should be the same as a human driver, which is our own safety.

I honestly do not see any moral dilemma here. It would be like asking a human driver if they should sacrifice their own safety for others. Of course the answer has to be no.
 
KevinSMayfield said:
I don't know if anybody pointed this out, but in those three pictures you're not likely looking at death for the passengers in the car. Running directly to the right like that would reduce the impact because you're colliding in a different direction from your momentum, and the safety features of the car should create a greater protection. A much worse scenario is going off the road directly into the end of a barrier, without changing direction.
Click to expand...

This.

It's a false choice. At city speeds, where you actually encounter pedestrians, turning to the roadside and slamming the brakes would never result in death of the occupants. It's a simple choice.

Now if some idiot runs out onto a highway, it should mow him down if safe avoidance is not possible.
 
I think we all know the answer, it's whichever costs less in court later

Should autonomous vehicles kill pedestrians or passengers?

Number of vehicles in the field A
Probable rate of death B
average cost of out of court settlement C

A*B*C=X

if X is less than the cost of a recall, we dont do one
 
cyclone3d said:
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.
Click to expand...

That honestly is a much better way of saying it. The way you worded it did come off as the kind of person that talks about hoping someone breaks into their house so they can shoot them. Now I understand better what you were thinking.
 
If you crash because you swerved out of your lane, you'll be held responsible. So the solution is that self driving cars shouldn't swerve unless it is absolutely clear that will not cause a secondary incident.
 
Shotglass01 said:
Not a half bad idea. Also might be useful when collisions take place between cars too. Might dampen the blow. I question about what the bounce factor might be with a person. But I'm sure I'd choose the airbag every time over hard metal and glass.
Click to expand...

Well, i guess that would depend on the design of the airbag. Think about the types of airbags that stunt people in movies use. They dont bounce back up, the air is forced out with the impact, acting like a shock absorber.

The way i was thinking was, one airbag would deploy from the grille area, then another from the cowl panel. That would essentially shield the occupants of the car and whoever got hit.
 
I don't know if it has been mentioned yet, but sooner or later automated cars will kill both passenger and pedestrian alike. No remorse, no moral ambiguities.
 
Hypergreatthing said:
I'd say run over the people who shouldn't be in the road.
Click to expand...
Yes, driver, and non-roadway pedestrian lives take precedence, then in order those that are violating laws, since in a life exchange scenario, the person driving should not give up their lives while doing things correctly.
 
ob1 said:
What if they weren't jaywalkers? What if they were escaping a burning school bus and trying to run to safety? Too much sensory input processing for nearly infinite situations, so just make it easy and crash the car then? I don't have a better solution, but I would think there should be some medium ground here...
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter why someone has run out into the road. We're talking about ethics here and not morality. It's not an issue of right and wrong, it's an issue of expectation. When you run into the path of a moving vehicle that can't safely avoid hitting you, then you expect to get hit. That's the ethical system that we have right now with non-autonomous cars. We're just adding these autonomous vehicles to that pre-existing ethical system.
 
Shotglass01 said:
Not sure this is an either or, but they're posing the question that way. I, for one, would try to ensure the car didn't lose control, flip over, or move in to oncoming traffic. That said, that usually means the car is going to go straight so whatever is in front of me is getting the brunt of it. I also had a very young girl bounce off the side of my dad's car while I was driving it. She didn't die, but I see why they put the horn in the center of the steering wheel. It was a Chrysler when it was all the rage to put the horn buttons anywhere but the center of the wheel. And when you're white knuckled, trying to stop something from happening, your hand goes to the center of the wheel. Straight, more or less, driving though. It had been wet from rain, and I couldn't have the car lose control so she got the brunt of it.
Click to expand...

Sadly it does have to be one or the other though. As you said you either slam on the breaks still going straight and hit whatever is in front of you. Or you very quickly turn to go off the road and hit a tree, ditch or railing and you risk hurting the people inside or flipping the car. That means you have to make the choice. Sometimes that choice might be clear such as it can just change lanes or get off the road, other times it isn't as clear and that is where the situation here comes into play. If the choice is to move the car into a position that will cause risk to the driver and people inside the car vs risk to people outside the car which do you go with? Lets say you are on an overpass, you have 3 choices, hit the side of the overpass and maybe flip off, go into oncoming traffic, or hit a person standing in the road. Which of the 3 choices do you go with? The car has to be preprogrammed to know who it should try to save the most, the people in the car or those outside the car so that it can make the "correct" choice in every instance.
 
Scizyr said:
The car should always choose to preserve itself first. If it can save itself, then the passenger would be safe and it won't get damaged from external obstacles, whether or not those obstacles are people.
Click to expand...

KARR might be the result of that.
 
Apply the real world test to this, would a human kill themselves in that same situation to protect pedestrians? Answer, no at best they freak out andnkill themselves but no one is doing it intentionally, at best they slam on the brakes. So why should we expect autonomous cars to put us in MORE harms way. If pedestrians are trying to commit suicide unintentionally by running into the street then I should not be a causilty of that under any circumstanses and I demand any autonomous csr I ever get to behave that way
 
This entire hypothetical situation is pointless. If the car is going so fast that it can't just stop and avoid the people, it is also going too fast to make a small radius 90 degree turn. It's not worth arguing the ethics on a bullshit impossible situation.
 
Shotglass01 said:
Not sure this is an either or, but they're posing the question that way. I, for one, would try to ensure the car didn't lose control, flip over, or move in to oncoming traffic. That said, that usually means the car is going to go straight so whatever is in front of me is getting the brunt of it. I also had a very young girl bounce off the side of my dad's car while I was driving it. She didn't die, but I see why they put the horn in the center of the steering wheel. It was a Chrysler when it was all the rage to put the horn buttons anywhere but the center of the wheel. And when you're white knuckled, trying to stop something from happening, your hand goes to the center of the wheel. Straight, more or less, driving though. It had been wet from rain, and I couldn't have the car lose control so she got the brunt of it.
Click to expand...

Hornet said:
IMO, the car's AI should only attempt to avoid pedestrians SAFELY. Change the direction as far as it can without hitting anything else, and the rest is just getting the car to stop as fast as it can.
Just like how a normal driver would react. I'm not going to swerve into something else just because someone crossed the road without looking. I'll just slam the brakes and hope my car can stop in time.

Nothing has to change IMO. The pedestrian's safety is still a concern of their own (as it is right now), while the car AI's priority should be the same as a human driver, which is our own safety.

I honestly do not see any moral dilemma here. It would be like asking a human driver if they should sacrifice their own safety for others. Of course the answer has to be no.
Click to expand...

And this is where Hornet and I think alike.

I also agree that we shouldn't make the car try and do things differently than a human driver would in the same situation. Just have the computer do it better, be more attentive, etc.

As soon as these designers deviate from what a normal human would do in the same situation, they have accepted all responsibility for the outcome, even if it's the lesser of two evils.
 
DocSavage said:
This entire hypothetical situation is pointless. If the car is going so fast that it can't just stop and avoid the people, it is also going too fast to make a small radius 90 degree turn. It's not worth arguing the ethics on a bullshit impossible situation.
Click to expand...

And for the most part, I completely agree with DocSavage who feels that no matter what, the car is not supposed to be presented with this situation to begin with. And yes, I am one of the loudest "shit happens" proponents. But I am also the one that says when shit does happen, see my post immediately above.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top