3 ms·
I think this is a mostly a false dilemma. It makes most sense that if a collision is unavoidable, brake hard to minimize overall damage/injury. There is no reas
by hrehhf 10y ago
I think this is a mostly a false dilemma. It makes most sense that if a collision is unavoidable, brake hard to minimize overall damage/injury. There is no reason a computer-driven car should ever unavoidably find pedestrians in its path except when the pedestrians recklessly got into the car's path. Therefore, why inflict injury to the innocent passengers to save pedestrians who are at fault? It seems like braking and hoping for the best is the best solution, for human drivers as well as computers.
- extrapickles 10y agoI agree. Also, I would consider the automated car to be recklessly driving if it finds itself in that situation as it should not drive faster than its sensors can see a clear path for. It would be better if the car braked hard, and aligned the car to squarely hit the obstruction so you don't have an offset collision. This would also be better for the pedestrian hit as the middle of a cars hood is softer than the edges and better for the car and its occupants as crash protection will be more effective.