Good question Plasma Inferno. I predict a future where all cars are self-driving, putting an end to speeding etc., except the police force which will still have manually driven automobiles...
the results of the study show that most people want to live a world in which everybody owns driverless cars that minimize casualties, but they want their own car to protect them at all costs.
Cars will try to avoid accidents, period. There won't be any moral dilemmas.Me, I don't see why the car's passengers' lives should come last. Instead, driverless cars should try to save the maximum number of lives, irrespective of where they are.
well thats a relief.the results of the study show that most people want to live a world in which everybody owns driverless cars
Good to know your opinion.Cars will try to avoid accidents, period. There won't be any moral dilemmas.
When they train ordinary drivers, do they train them to kill pedestrians rather than risk their passengers? Nope. They tell them "don't hit pedestrians."
Good to know your opinion.
Me, I don't see why the car's passengers' lives should come last. Instead, driverless cars should try to save the maximum number of lives, irrespective of where they are.
EB
Driverless cars will try to avoid collisions. Period. They will not be "deciding who can die" or any such nonsense, any more than human drivers do.Instead, driverless cars should try to save the maximum number of lives, irrespective of where they are.
EB
Sorry but that all sounds irrelevant to me.do you not feel yourself being pulled into the midst of a fools debate about how much profit a corporate can make while not being sueded for a car killing someone ?
it sounds like a pay per view charity for a dear john letter to the person who just got killed by a corporate vehicle and how their death is in service to the corporations profit margin.
it really does all sound quite psychopathic
the vehicles in US culture will not be deemed an emergency services vehicle so will be free from prosecution from not avoiding killing people.
attempting to program for regulation to present some type of valid working moral value by surveying people who are not having their family run over by driverless cars is not a fair survey.
more soo since the actual vehicle does not exist as a working model in society.
they are a vehicle of the elitist rich, whom are currently and quite obviousely attempting to get the working class to make an acceptable loss margin where they can be free from being sued for death and injury.
any fair minded caring human should avoid the debate & participation completely in my opinion until the vehicles come with a waiver allowing them to be sued for death & injury, just like a driver can and is.
That's obviously a possibility but I don't think you would know in advance what will happen in the end.Driverless cars will try to avoid collisions. Period. They will not be "deciding who can die" or any such nonsense, any more than human drivers do.
The safest place by far in an accident is inside the car. Passengers in an accident are far, far less likely to suffer mortal injuries than those outside the car. Many fatalities occur when passengers inside the car - who would have survived just fine - are killed when ejected.Sorry but that all sounds irrelevant to me.
And I still don't see why the car's passengers' lives should come last.
EB
Yes, I know all this already, thanks. That wasn't the question.The safest place by far in an accident is inside the car. Passengers in an accident are far, far less likely to suffer mortal injuries than those outside the car. Many fatalities occur when passengers inside the car - who would have survived just fine - are killed when ejected.
An accident violent enough to kill an occupant would pulverise a pedestrian.
So pedestrians are in far, far more danger than occupants.
different countrys have different police.Police are basically walking automatons, obedient to the codes.
Why should we limit driverless cars to do the same as human drivers only better? If driverless cars could do things humans couldn't, why not take advantage of that?I think bill is probably right. There won't be algorithms to determine who will I hit. There will be algorithms to determine how I can avoid an accident.
Human drivers don't think, "should I swerve into oncoming traffic or should I run over the little old lady on the sidewalk?" We swerve the direction our instincts take us and then say "Oh Shit!". There will probably be standard protocols, IF possible - stop! ELSE swerve in the direction that avoids oncoming traffic. (Left in remnants of the British Empire, right everywhere else in the world.)
No doubt we will, and that will result in cars that are safer than human-driven cars today.Why should we limit driverless cars to do the same as human drivers only better? If driverless cars could do things humans couldn't, why not take advantage of that?
Perhaps I was interpreting your phrase "come last" incorrectly. (Admittedly, I haven't found the sub-thread that led to that post.)Yes, I know all this already, thanks. That wasn't the question.
EB