2 ms·
Generally we should probably have vehicles follow proscriptions of the law when they can't avoid hitting anything and change the law if we want them to act diff
by Symmetry 7y ago
Generally we should probably have vehicles follow proscriptions of the law when they can't avoid hitting anything and change the law if we want them to act differently. I've never seen a hypothetical self-driving car trolley problem where there wasn't a single option that was clearly what the law required.
- ghaff 7y agoBy and large, the trolley problem concept is overblown. Most of the time the right/best answer is going to be to stand on the brakes and hope for the best. But I'm honestly not sure what the law "requires" if you've got a scenario where there are going to be bad outcomes no matter what you do.
- Symmetry 7y agoFor instance if a car has the choice of hitting someone in the road or swerving onto the sidewalk and hitting someone there then clearly the legal thing to do is for the car to stay in its right of way and hit the person in the road.
- ghaff 7y agoThat's a pretty clear case of taking a deliberate action to leave the road surface. But you can at least imagine scenarios where everyone is within the bounds of the road--say 5 people directly ahead and 1 off to the side. As I say though, if you can't swerve to avoid people, the most reasonable action that most people would take--to the degree they had time to make a conscious decision at all--would be to brake as hard as they could and let things play out as they will.