6 ms·

Should your driverless car kill you to save a child?

7 points by chton 12y ago

lotsofmangos 12y ago
"When robot cars must kill, there are good reasons why designers should not be the ones picking victims." There are also good reasons for them to be picking victims, in the case presented, switching control to the driver may increase the chance of both the child and the driver dying. The designers of roads made the decision anyway, roads for motor vehicles could all have big sidewalls and be up on stilts and never be a threat to pedestrians or wildlife, if we wanted them to. It would be very expensive to do this, so we accept the deaths.
dm2 12y ago
This scenario should never be possible. An autonomous vehicle should never be traveling fast enough to not be able to stop for any objects that could potentially jump out in front of it. If there is a blind spot, slow the vehicle down. If there is a crosswalk, slow down. What about animals though? I often see squirrels, geese, and deer in the middle of the road. Does the vehicle honk the horn and inch forward? Geese are dumb and will stand in the middle of the road until you scare them or they decide they want to cross, squirrels will actually challenge the vehicle many times. Someone will die from an autonomous vehicle eventually, there's no way to prevent that just because of the odds of some fluke happening. If someone trips or purposely jumps in front of an autonomous vehicle then there is nothing that could have been done, don't kill the driver for the pedestrians mistake.
- chton 12y ago
  Being able to stop for anything that jumps in front of your cars is impossible at any speed. You could be going 5mph, if the thing jumps close enough your reaction speed will never be good enough to brake in time. it's the same with the car's reaction time. It doesn't matter what speed you pick, accidents can happen. If anything, self-driving cars would be allowed to drive a lot faster, since they have far faster reaction speeds and far more information about their surroundings than human drivers.
  - dm2 12y ago
    The slower speed would allow for the vehicle to crash into the wall (if that's the only option) and everybody would live. Unless the person falls from above, from a blindspot, or falls a few feet in front of the vehicle, it should be able to stop or maneuver around the object without a problem. Cars are VERY maneuverable, especially when you add computer controlled reflexes. Yes, autonomous vehicles would have a much higher speed limit (having a supercar would actually allow you to get to work much faster than people with normal cars) but they should also be able to recognize higher risk areas and know to slow down in order to minimize the likelihood of killing someone.
    - chton 12y ago
      Every crash has the potential to be fatal, and forcing all self-driving cars (or indeed all cars, since the same argument applies to human drivers) to keep to extremely low speeds isn't a viable solution. Cars are only manoeuvrable at low speeds. At high speeds, the laws of inertia dictate that they take a lot of energy and time to stop or turn. This is true for all cars, computer controlled or not. But all this is beside the point. There will be a moment where a me-or-them situation will arise with self-driving cars, regardless of precautions. The discussion this post is trying to start is about what happens at that point, not how we can minimize the occurrence.
      - dm2 12y ago
        I'd like to see a simulation of this scenario, I find it hard to believe that the only options would be kill the child or the passengers. If that was the only options, then the vehicle shouldn't have put them in that danger by traveling that fast. The road would have to be extremely narrow, and if there was a wall on the other side, where was the child trying to cross to? If there are pedestrians right at the edge of a road and there is the possibility that they might fall into the road, then the vehicle should be traveling at a speed which would not be fatal or at a speed where it would be possible to avoid them by driving off the road. I absolutely did not say "force all vehicles to travel at an extremely low speed", please don't twist my words. They're pretty maneuverable: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zOFNTkxMvQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zOFNTkxMvQ Also, what if a deer walks or falls into the road? Should the vehicle kill the passengers? What if you just throw a mannequin of a small child into the road, should it kill the passengers? No, it should do what it can to avoid the accident but always protect the passengers if possible.
- krapp 12y ago
  Autonomous cars should obviously be programmed to obey all traffic laws. However, since human drivers don't, this in and of itself may create the impression for passengers that autonomous cars are inexorably slow. If one assumes that even a human driver obeying the traffic laws and speed limits is still too unsafe, having them move even slower than that may be intolerable. Because they're considered more safe and more efficient, autonomous traffic may be designed to move even faster than is legal for humans (they would be subject to their own distinct traffic laws.) This may be especially likely for automated trucks, which will be expected to deliver their cargo as fast as possible, as often as necessary.
  - dm2 12y ago
    I agree with everything you said, as long as the vehicle has a clear line of sight of the road ahead and there is enough room to drive off of the road if something unexpected happens. In the situation mentioned there is a blindspot where a child could be (for whatever reason) and a wall on the other side of the road. The vehicle was traveling fast enough so that it could not stop or avoid the child and if it crashed into the wall it would kill the passengers, in my opinion this vehicle in this situation was traveling too fast. How about this scenario, say you purchase an autonomous supercar that can travel at 150+ MPH down the highway and a deer approaches the road, the vehicle should slow down to a point where it can safely avoid the deer no matter what random action it takes, correct? If the deer hits the car, everybody loses so it is in everyone's best interest to avoid that situation even if it means that person gets to work a few seconds later every day because there are always deer at a certain place on the highway. This is especially true in cities, yes, autonomous cars could probably "safely" travel at 100+ MPH but if something unexpected happens it would not be acceptable to hit several pedestrians due to the unknown happening, like someone or an animal running out into the street.
- lotsofmangos 12y ago
  What exactly is the argument you are trying to make? Your initial position of; "This scenario should never be possible." "An autonomous vehicle should never be traveling fast enough to not be able to stop for any objects that could potentially jump out in front of it." Seems to flatly contradict your following statement that; "Someone will die from an autonomous vehicle eventually, there's no way to prevent that just because of the odds of some fluke happening. If someone trips or purposely jumps in front of an autonomous vehicle then there is nothing that could have been done, don't kill the driver for the pedestrians mistake." Do you really think you have thought through your argument here?
  - dm2 12y ago
    If the vehicle has enough time to detect someone has fallen in the road to be able to swerve and hit a wall (killing the driver), then the vehicle should also have been able to detect that someone was close to the road (or that there was a blindspot near a crosswalk) and it should have been traveling a speed that would allow it to either stop or hit the wall without fatally injuring the passengers. About the vehicle killing someone, every object ever made can and probably has killed someone. Cellphones, pencils, car keys, snow-skis, etc. If someone tries to get hit by an autonomous vehicle I'm sure it would be possible somehow, but the car should not drive off of a cliff if someone jumps in front of the vehicle or throws a mannequin in front of it. Basically, if there is plenty of room on the side of the road for avoiding unexpected objects and there is a clear line of sight in front and around the road, go fast. If there is a very narrow road with a wall on one side and pedestrians on the other or blindspots where pedestrians could potentially be, go slow enough to avoid having to choose who to kill.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    - lotsofmangos 12y ago
      "If the vehicle has enough time to detect someone has fallen in the road to be able to swerve and hit a wall (killing the driver), then the vehicle should also have been able to detect that someone was close to the road (or that there was a blindspot near a crosswalk)" Those are two different problems and an ability to do the former does not necessarily indicate an ability to do the latter.

7 points by chton 12y ago

"When robot cars must kill, there are good reasons why designers should not be the ones picking victims." There are also good reasons for them to be picking victims, in the case presented, switching control to the driver may increase the chance of both the child and the driver dying. The designers of roads made the decision anyway, roads for motor vehicles could all have big sidewalls and be up on stilts and never be a threat to pedestrians or wildlife, if we wanted them to. It would be very expensive to do this, so we accept the deaths.

dm2 12y ago

This scenario should never be possible. An autonomous vehicle should never be traveling fast enough to not be able to stop for any objects that could potentially jump out in front of it. If there is a blind spot, slow the vehicle down. If there is a crosswalk, slow down. What about animals though? I often see squirrels, geese, and deer in the middle of the road. Does the vehicle honk the horn and inch forward? Geese are dumb and will stand in the middle of the road until you scare them or they decide they want to cross, squirrels will actually challenge the vehicle many times. Someone will die from an autonomous vehicle eventually, there's no way to prevent that just because of the odds of some fluke happening. If someone trips or purposely jumps in front of an autonomous vehicle then there is nothing that could have been done, don't kill the driver for the pedestrians mistake.

chton 12y ago
Being able to stop for anything that jumps in front of your cars is impossible at any speed. You could be going 5mph, if the thing jumps close enough your reaction speed will never be good enough to brake in time. it's the same with the car's reaction time. It doesn't matter what speed you pick, accidents can happen. If anything, self-driving cars would be allowed to drive a lot faster, since they have far faster reaction speeds and far more information about their surroundings than human drivers.
- dm2 12y ago
  The slower speed would allow for the vehicle to crash into the wall (if that's the only option) and everybody would live. Unless the person falls from above, from a blindspot, or falls a few feet in front of the vehicle, it should be able to stop or maneuver around the object without a problem. Cars are VERY maneuverable, especially when you add computer controlled reflexes. Yes, autonomous vehicles would have a much higher speed limit (having a supercar would actually allow you to get to work much faster than people with normal cars) but they should also be able to recognize higher risk areas and know to slow down in order to minimize the likelihood of killing someone.
  - chton 12y ago
    Every crash has the potential to be fatal, and forcing all self-driving cars (or indeed all cars, since the same argument applies to human drivers) to keep to extremely low speeds isn't a viable solution. Cars are only manoeuvrable at low speeds. At high speeds, the laws of inertia dictate that they take a lot of energy and time to stop or turn. This is true for all cars, computer controlled or not. But all this is beside the point. There will be a moment where a me-or-them situation will arise with self-driving cars, regardless of precautions. The discussion this post is trying to start is about what happens at that point, not how we can minimize the occurrence.
    - dm2 12y ago
      I'd like to see a simulation of this scenario, I find it hard to believe that the only options would be kill the child or the passengers. If that was the only options, then the vehicle shouldn't have put them in that danger by traveling that fast. The road would have to be extremely narrow, and if there was a wall on the other side, where was the child trying to cross to? If there are pedestrians right at the edge of a road and there is the possibility that they might fall into the road, then the vehicle should be traveling at a speed which would not be fatal or at a speed where it would be possible to avoid them by driving off the road. I absolutely did not say "force all vehicles to travel at an extremely low speed", please don't twist my words. They're pretty maneuverable: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zOFNTkxMvQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zOFNTkxMvQ Also, what if a deer walks or falls into the road? Should the vehicle kill the passengers? What if you just throw a mannequin of a small child into the road, should it kill the passengers? No, it should do what it can to avoid the accident but always protect the passengers if possible.
krapp 12y ago
Autonomous cars should obviously be programmed to obey all traffic laws. However, since human drivers don't, this in and of itself may create the impression for passengers that autonomous cars are inexorably slow. If one assumes that even a human driver obeying the traffic laws and speed limits is still too unsafe, having them move even slower than that may be intolerable. Because they're considered more safe and more efficient, autonomous traffic may be designed to move even faster than is legal for humans (they would be subject to their own distinct traffic laws.) This may be especially likely for automated trucks, which will be expected to deliver their cargo as fast as possible, as often as necessary.
- dm2 12y ago
  I agree with everything you said, as long as the vehicle has a clear line of sight of the road ahead and there is enough room to drive off of the road if something unexpected happens. In the situation mentioned there is a blindspot where a child could be (for whatever reason) and a wall on the other side of the road. The vehicle was traveling fast enough so that it could not stop or avoid the child and if it crashed into the wall it would kill the passengers, in my opinion this vehicle in this situation was traveling too fast. How about this scenario, say you purchase an autonomous supercar that can travel at 150+ MPH down the highway and a deer approaches the road, the vehicle should slow down to a point where it can safely avoid the deer no matter what random action it takes, correct? If the deer hits the car, everybody loses so it is in everyone's best interest to avoid that situation even if it means that person gets to work a few seconds later every day because there are always deer at a certain place on the highway. This is especially true in cities, yes, autonomous cars could probably "safely" travel at 100+ MPH but if something unexpected happens it would not be acceptable to hit several pedestrians due to the unknown happening, like someone or an animal running out into the street.
lotsofmangos 12y ago
What exactly is the argument you are trying to make? Your initial position of; "This scenario should never be possible." "An autonomous vehicle should never be traveling fast enough to not be able to stop for any objects that could potentially jump out in front of it." Seems to flatly contradict your following statement that; "Someone will die from an autonomous vehicle eventually, there's no way to prevent that just because of the odds of some fluke happening. If someone trips or purposely jumps in front of an autonomous vehicle then there is nothing that could have been done, don't kill the driver for the pedestrians mistake." Do you really think you have thought through your argument here?
- dm2 12y ago
  If the vehicle has enough time to detect someone has fallen in the road to be able to swerve and hit a wall (killing the driver), then the vehicle should also have been able to detect that someone was close to the road (or that there was a blindspot near a crosswalk) and it should have been traveling a speed that would allow it to either stop or hit the wall without fatally injuring the passengers. About the vehicle killing someone, every object ever made can and probably has killed someone. Cellphones, pencils, car keys, snow-skis, etc. If someone tries to get hit by an autonomous vehicle I'm sure it would be possible somehow, but the car should not drive off of a cliff if someone jumps in front of the vehicle or throws a mannequin in front of it. Basically, if there is plenty of room on the side of the road for avoiding unexpected objects and there is a clear line of sight in front and around the road, go fast. If there is a very narrow road with a wall on one side and pedestrians on the other or blindspots where pedestrians could potentially be, go slow enough to avoid having to choose who to kill.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - lotsofmangos 12y ago
    "If the vehicle has enough time to detect someone has fallen in the road to be able to swerve and hit a wall (killing the driver), then the vehicle should also have been able to detect that someone was close to the road (or that there was a blindspot near a crosswalk)" Those are two different problems and an ability to do the former does not necessarily indicate an ability to do the latter.