Posted on 06/25/2016 7:11:06 PM PDT by MtnClimber
A new study explores a moral dilemma facing the creators of self-driving vehicles: In an accident, whose lives should they prioritize?
So you’re driving down a dark road late at night when suddenly a child comes darting out onto the pavement. Instinctively, you swerve, putting your own safety in jeopardy to spare her life. Very noble of you. But would you want your driverless vehicle to do the same?
That question, which can be found idling at the intersection of technology and ethics, is posed in the latest issue of Science. A variation on the famous trolley dilemma, it won’t be theoretical for long: Self-driving vehicles are coming soon, and they will need to be programmed how to respond to emergencies.
A research team led by Iyad Rahwan of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology argues that this poses a huge challenge to their creators. In a series of studies, it finds people generally agree with the “utilitarian” argument — the notion that cars should be programmed to spare as many lives as possible.
However, when asked what they would personally purchase, they tended to prefer a vehicle that prioritized the safety of its riders. And a theoretical government regulation that would mandate a spare-the-greatest-number approach significantly dampens their enthusiasm for buying a driverless car.
(Excerpt) Read more at psmag.com ...
Would a driverless NASCAR spin out the car in front of it to win a race?
Looking forward to the driverless car. They will probably be much better than most drivers. Granted they will start off by having express lanes and such with limited roads and areas. Just hope the technology arrives to a point where I can call a car, hop in, and drop me off at my destination. Great for soon to be old codgers.
I see too much risk that .gov will use GlowBull warming as an excuse to have approval authority over where your car will be permitted to take you.
If the authorities are looking for you, the doors will locked and you will be deposited at the appropriate facility.
Driverless vehicles in blinding snowstorms on narrow, windy, high mountain roads?
4X4’s on rough trails in the backcountry? I don’t think so.
I’ll keep my manual shift, hand cranked wind up window, Jeep controlled by me thanks.
Il just wondering who is liable in an accident involving a driverless car.
Yes, and if you are ordering it you can order the size you need for each trip.
A single seater with baggage space for a trip to the supermarket, or a 4 or 6 seater for a family trip to the restaurant, and no designated driver needed...:^)
If you ever are stupid enough to buy a driverless car, someday the windows will roll up, the doors will lock, and your car will deliver you to prison.
A “driverless” car has a driver—the government.
It used to be that cars were marketed with higher horsepower, torque, lower 0 to 60, etc.
Now they're marketed with WiFi, GPS, individually heated seats, rear DVD/iPod players, etc.
I think that a good number of people will want to purchase their own driverless vehicles so they can make sure it has all the goodies they want. Some driverless cars might have hot tubs, seats that recline into beds, windows replaced with screens that can show what's outside or whatever the owner would prefer to see, etc.
These folks will definitely want to set the computer to "Save my ass first" mode. They might also put it in "violate the law when there are no cameras looking" mode as well.
Now consider if that is not a child, but a raccoon. Would you want your driverless car to swerve and put you and your family at risk? A human driver can discern the difference between a raccoon and a human child. That happened to me once, where a raccoon was in my path and stood up. I ran over it rather than swerve, because I would crash into oncoming traffic or into obstacles. Felt bad for the raccoon, but my family is more important.
That is the wrong first question to ask. Who comes up with these red herrings?
The place to begin is with the obvious relevant isuue.
In case of accidents and deaths, who is liable?
The manufacturer of the car?
The author of its software and the designer/manufacturer of its navigation hardware?
Or the owner/Operator?
The trend is clear.
The overwhelming pressure mounting is definitely to eliminate or at least drastically reduce the control over the subject of ignorant and overbearing elected criminals and lifelong-employment ignorant and incompetent unaccountable* bureaucrats...
That likelihood is quickly receding.
* Accountability without serious and certain consequences is a socially fatal joke : e.g. The Old Fat Unindicted Criminal Cow.
That is a conscious and preventable decision. We certainly don't need a control criminal freak at the reins of such a problem : e.g., an Obama, a Clinton or a Sanders...
Not necessarily so murky. Just have the owner/passenger go through a survey to determine his preferences in advance, kind of like a living will:
If it’s a choice between decreasing the risk of killing an x (your child, the child of someone you know, an unknown child, your family’s pet, your neighbor’s pet, a random cat or dog, a random mammal, a reptile or amphibian) and increasing the risk to yourself of death or injury, what tradeoffs do you want your semi-sentient car to make?
Wonderful. And the second we have successful driverless cars, the government will gradually require all cars to be driverless “for safety”. Then the government will require the route you’ll take, the required number of passengers (for efficiency) and of course, your maximum speed.
Then it’s only a matter of time before your trip is denied because of “energy restrictions” or “excess traffic volume” or “other traffic has priority”.
Can’t wait to give up your freedom, can you?
“A “driverless” car has a driver—the government.”
GM just came out in favor of AV’s as though it was their “Voice of the Customer” telling Mary Barra, the first-ever Chairwoman and CEO that autonomous vehicles are what the people want. However, the voices she is listening to are not those of the American consumer. I hope they fail.
“Then it’s only a matter of time before your trip is denied because of “energy restrictions” or “excess traffic volume” or “other traffic has priority”.”
Who or what decides when it’s time to go to the car wash and what kind of car wash it’s going to be and where? Will we have to make an appointment just to get the damned car washed?
The Republican....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.