4 ms·

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 reac

by 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.
    - chton 12y ago
      I agree with your conclusion, but for different reasons. There will be loads of situations that are far less clear-cut than this. A lot of times, they will involve other cars. By always taking the options that prefer the passengers, the car will be reacting in far more predictable and simple manner. This will make it safer for other cars that do the same to react to. Communication with the other cars might help reduce danger overall, but all of them will need to be able to manage traffic even in situations where this doesn't work. If the choices of other cars are too unpredictable for a given situation, that's a recipe for disaster. Unfortunately, the selfish choice will always be the simpler.
    - chton 12y ago
      To answer to your edited version: I agree that it should avoid an accident as much as possible, but I don't assume that that will be an option in all possible situations. The case given was a thought experiment to indicate the ethical conundrum, not a real life situation. It's not supposed to be realistic, it's a jumping off point for a discussions. The problem with your statements so far is that they assume perfect knowledge of the surroundings. How fast is the car allowed to go if it's 99% confident that there is nothing that can jump in the way? how about 99.999%? When is enough? If you deal with absolutes, the only thing you can end up with is "an extremely low speed". Lastly: I'm not sure what you're trying to prove with that video. At any speed high enough, a car needs distances measured in yards to stop and turn, regardless of how good it is. In the case of trucks, that can even be measured in miles. There are rigid limits on how manoeuvrable a car can be, and they need to be calculated into anything the car does.

by chton 12y ago

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.
  - chton 12y ago
    I agree with your conclusion, but for different reasons. There will be loads of situations that are far less clear-cut than this. A lot of times, they will involve other cars. By always taking the options that prefer the passengers, the car will be reacting in far more predictable and simple manner. This will make it safer for other cars that do the same to react to. Communication with the other cars might help reduce danger overall, but all of them will need to be able to manage traffic even in situations where this doesn't work. If the choices of other cars are too unpredictable for a given situation, that's a recipe for disaster. Unfortunately, the selfish choice will always be the simpler.
  - chton 12y ago
    To answer to your edited version: I agree that it should avoid an accident as much as possible, but I don't assume that that will be an option in all possible situations. The case given was a thought experiment to indicate the ethical conundrum, not a real life situation. It's not supposed to be realistic, it's a jumping off point for a discussions. The problem with your statements so far is that they assume perfect knowledge of the surroundings. How fast is the car allowed to go if it's 99% confident that there is nothing that can jump in the way? how about 99.999%? When is enough? If you deal with absolutes, the only thing you can end up with is "an extremely low speed". Lastly: I'm not sure what you're trying to prove with that video. At any speed high enough, a car needs distances measured in yards to stop and turn, regardless of how good it is. In the case of trucks, that can even be measured in miles. There are rigid limits on how manoeuvrable a car can be, and they need to be calculated into anything the car does.