Posted on 11/26/2017 8:26:32 AM PST by markomalley
Self-driving cars may have to make the moral decision of who lives and who dies during a crash, according to a report.
As you approach a rise in the road, heading south, a school bus appears, driving north, one driven by a human, and it veers sharply toward you. There is no time to stop safely, and no time for you to take control of the car, USA Today explained. Does the car: A. Swerve sharply into the trees, possibly killing you but possibly saving the bus and its occupants? B. Perform a sharp evasive maneuver around the bus and into the oncoming lane, possibly saving you, but sending the bus and its driver swerving into the trees, killing her and some of the children on board? C. Hit the bus, possibly killing you as well as the driver and kids on the bus?
The moral dilemma has been heavily discussed with the advancement of self-driving vehicles.
According to USA Today, Azim Shariff, an assistant professor of psychology and social behavior at the University of California, Irvine, co-authored a study last year that found that while respondents generally agreed that a car should, in the case of an inevitable crash, kill the fewest number of people possible regardless of whether they were passengers or people outside of the car, they were less likely to buy any car in which they and their family member would be sacrificed for the greater good.'
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
what makes you think the pajama boy wimps of the government will allow humans to drive?
what if a person does not want to share that personal information?
All will have to register their race and religion before being allowed to “not drive” a driverless car. The algorithm will we created so as to kill people in proportion to their representation in the population, except for m*slims, which will be allowed to live 5 times as much as Christians.
In an impending accident, the program will have access to an immense database of road deaths, and will choose who is to die based on keeping with the law-mandated percentages of deaths.
(You think I’m kidding?)
the first class action law suit brought against the makers of self driving cars and semi trucks will end this idea of not having a driver.
Breakin’ the law, breakin’ the law. Breakin; the Zeroth Law.
immunity laws will already be in place.
A car that’s a death panel. Cool...
Well with those criteria in place none of the people in this country drive themselves. Half the people use maps and we all used outside sources to know how to drive.
Why? So corporations don’t have to pay truckers and delivery drivers.
These and many other "what if" scenarios will be carried out under the control of algorithms dictated by the Feds.
Car yoga
My invention developed after I noticed sharp pain in right hip area from frequent driving
1 use neutral all the time at stops in traffic etc
Don’t ever push on Brake with car in gear at a stop
2 use gears to downshift. Even in automatics. Saving brakes
3. Cruise control. Use whenever possible on highways where flat
4. Drive very slowly but not annoyingly. Always cede to mr and mrs “ in a hurries “. ( most drivers )
Only pay attention to what’s in front of you for most part
The idea is minimize stress on body and use cars attributes to make as close to self driving as possible
Also minimizes wear and tear on automobile and saves gas
The neutral thing was a complete revolution for me since I spend a lot of time in SF bay traffic
I just take feet off petals and shuttle back and forth between N and D on the “prindl”
Hope this aids you folks who have to drive a lot
Cheers.
“Consider also the computer driving the oncoming vehicle will also be making a decision at the same time. What if its programming has a different set of priorities?”
This is such an excellent point.
The customer’s life should be valued above the life of the non customer in a crash, I would think, at least from the standpoint of The Marketing Department.
its not about what we need its about what we WANT
>I don’t agree, it’s about what THEY want. They = the social engineers. THEY can control us better that way.
No. It’s what WE want. Just like I listed off in the part you couldn’t be bothered to quote. It ain’t social engineering, it’s the next big idea.
Not really. If both were being driven by computer, theoretically the situation would not occur.
What about brake lights t9 let others know you are slowing down/stopping? Sounds like you are openin* yourself up to getting rear-ended.
Thanx a bunch, but I don’t drive...I have a driver!
;)
+++++++++++++++++++++
It’s all In-venereal to me....
Its what we want.
>Who is “we” - must be you, I don’t want it.
I already listed off many we’s which you apparently were too lazy to read. Nobody’s going to force you to have it, at least not for a good 20 years. Kind of like power windows.
The insurance industry is going to make it very expensive for a human driven car to be on the highway. The savings of lowering traffic fatalities by as little as 5 percent dwarfs any self driving accident.
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.