patrick.net

As with everything else, let the market decide this. People are going to want cars which protect them at all costs, not some nebulous “Greater good.” If this scenario ever happened, it would be for the first and last time because the public outcry would ensure it didn’t happen again, or the auto manufacturer went out of business.

Let the market handle it. The only danger is with the government possibly getting involved...

Sniper says

C. Hit the bus, possibly killing you as well as the driver and kids on the bus?

Quigley says

People are going to want cars which protect them at all costs

Sniper says

So, you're OK with the onboard software making the decision to run over your son walking on the curb versus hitting a car because he's "smaller"?

Ed Wallace on Wheels with Ed Wallace, 570 AM Ft. Worth last Saturday had some comments on this and about how the electronics are going to be programmed. If I remember correctly, Mercedes is going to default to protecting the car driver/owner at all costs. As mentioned last, another brand is going to default to whatever is the smallest thing/person in the way. It's going to provide a gold mine for liability lawyers with the skies the limit.

Sniper says

Does the car:

A. Swerve sharply into the trees, possibly killing you but possibly saving the bus and its occupants?

B. Perform a sharp evasive maneuver around the bus and into the oncoming lane, possibly saving you, but sending the bus and its driver swerving into the trees, killing her and some of the children on board?

C. Hit the bus, possibly killing you as well as the driver and kids on the bus?

WWADD? What would a driver do?

Putting myself in that position, I would brake and turn into the oncoming lane, looking for the shoulder over there in case of oncoming traffic. The bus driver will have to either correct or crash or whatever. That’s not my problem and I have no idea if there are kids on board or not. The crazy bitch shouldn’t have swerved into my lane if she didn’t want to crash!

All the software can really do is decide based on how a driver would decide. Which is protect themselves, unless it’s a pedestrian. Then you do whatever it takes to avoid the pedestrian.

Do self driving cars get pulled over for DUIs if they use ethanol doped fuels?

Oligarch Bezos: "If it comes to a family of 4 or my Amazon Delivery Truck, we know where the value added lies. 500 Shades of Puce and Toaster-Coffee Makers take precedence!"

Oberlin College Women's Studies Professor Maya Lunarwoman: "The car must choose the death of the White Family over the Single Black Lesbian Female; we don't need more Trump Voters!"

It won’t be a problem once you outlaw non-self driving cars from the roads. The transition period will last 10-15 years.. and each year the road deaths will fall dramatically as more autonomous cars hit the road.

Also school buses will probably be nearly autonomous pretty early on... so this scenario won’t play out after school buses are autononomous.

The biggest problem will be pedestrian terrorists and sociopathic teens run in the middle of the street and parting the cars like the Red Sea...

You know someone is going to see how many self driving cars they can destroy jumping in front of them causing them to veer off road.

You have to remember that as self driving cars become a thing, cars will be completely redesigned. Safety of the driver and occupants can be completely be re-engineered if you take out the concerns over a human driving the car and the requirements of said human need to see 360 degrees around them and operate the vehicle.

While fatal rear end accidents occur, most fatal accidents likely occur with forward moving or front end collisions. Shifting passengers towards the rear, without have to worry about a driver would be the next logical step. As a "passenger" in a self driving car, you no longer need good sight lines as a "driver" would. Columns and other safety features can be completely redesigned allowing for a safer ride. So even if the car chooses you to crash, it's very likely you'll be in a much better scenario then current vehicles and driving methods.

Outside of random health issues, driving a car is the most likely way you'll die unexpectedly (I don't have a link, but my back of the napkin estimation makes sense to me). Unfortunately for the human race, I'm of the opinion a computer and sensors can probably be programed to drive better then 80-90% of drivers on the road now. I'm not sexist, but I'd venture to guess 90% of women drivers wouldn't pass a driving test if it needed to meet my personal parameters of getting in a car with them. Same goes for a good chunk of dudes that don't know how to drive either.

Self-Driving cars will destroy the environment.

Can you guess why?

WookieMan says

I'm of the opinion a computer and sensors can probably be programed to drive better then 80-90% of drivers on the road now.

The problem with this is that specialty, purpose built robots with big budgets by PhDs operating in a very defined area fall over into fountains, down stairs, etc. Now imagine millions of cars. Robot waiters operating in confined, small environments spill hot coffee and soup all over themselves, staff and customers.

Autonomous roving is a lot harder than it appears.

I'm gonna put myself out there and say self-driving cars are far away.

Sniper says

How that question gets answered may be important to the development and acceptance of self-driving cars.

Azim Shariff, an assistant professor of psychology and social behavior at the University of California, Irvine, co-authored a study last year that found that while respondents generally agreed that a car should, in the case of an inevitable crash, kill the fewest number of people possible regardless of whether they were passengers or people outside of the car, they were less likely to buy any car “in which they and their family member would be sacrificed for the greater good.”

The cars should come with a choice, an option you would click:
A. Give priority to passengers in this car. Fuck everyone else.
B. Save the most possible lives.
C. Don't care.

TwoScoopsMcGee says

I'm gonna put myself out there and say self-driving cars are far away.

I agree, and they will never be main stream. There are too many variables that happen on the roadway for a self-driving car to react to all of them. The software will never be that "smart". Getting a car to drive itself on an open highway is one thing, getting it to react to all the unknowns downtown is a whole different animal.

Actually if the car prioritizes safety of its occupants over all, then this BLM business of blocking freeway traffic wouldn’t work anymore, as the car would just plow right over those urban terrorists. And best part is no person could be blamed for killing the BLM asshole since technically a computer did it! Hurray!

Sniper says

TwoScoopsMcGee says

I'm gonna put myself out there and say self-driving cars are far away.

I agree, and they will never be main stream. There are too many variables that happen on the roadway for a self-driving car to react to all of them. The software will never be that "smart". Getting a car to drive itself on an open highway is one thing, getting it to react to all the unknowns downtown is a whole different animal.

You are right that the car cannot handle certain situations, but I think the intent is for the autonomous cars handle 99% and leave the last one percent to the driver. For example if a car is broken down and that car's Driver is gesturing for us to go around them, the intent is for the human to take over for the computer until the computer can handle the situation again. Point being I think the 99% car is closer than you think

What about planes? They are on auto pilot most of the time anyway.
Just imagine.....No one would be able to hijack a plane. 911 will be impossible to repeat.

WookieMan says

I'm not sexist, but I'd venture to guess 90% of women drivers wouldn't pass a driving

Why the need to state that you aren't sexist? Does stating that I am not racist make me a NON racist? The reason I ask is that I have noticed that almost everyone now feels like they need to somehow protect themselves by defining themselves before speaking. Your sentence would have been just fine without the first 3 words which you wouldn't have used 5 years ago.

Strategist says

What about planes? They are on auto pilot most of the time anyway.
Just imagine.....No one would be able to hijack a plane. 911 will be impossible to repeat.

sure it would, they would just claim it had been hacked by russia

MisdemeanorRebel says

I'm gonna put myself out there and say self-driving cars are far away.

wow what a risky prediction. I'm gonna put myself out there and say self-driving cars for american roads are a fantasy.

komputodo says

MisdemeanorRebel says

I'm gonna put myself out there and say self-driving cars are far away.

wow what a risky prediction. I'm gonna put myself out there and say self-driving cars for American roads are a fantasy.

Just like roundabouts being the majority type in every intersection.

1337irr says

wow what a risky prediction. I'm gonna put myself out there and say self-driving cars for American roads are a fantasy.

True, because private cars are likely to be a rare item by the time self-driving technology is practical.

komputodo says

Why the need to state that you aren't sexist?

None. Why does it matter? I'm not and I just said it. People say/write things. Not sure the issue at hand with your comment. I'm gonna say what I'm gonna say. I'm not sure if you're upset or how to read your comment. I'm not sexist and I honestly don't understand why that moves you. I believe you're a man from you posting history. Why should you care what a random from IL posts on an anonymous forum?

I just read this elsewhere:

"I bought a new truck in 2022, and I traded in a less optioned-up 2014 one. My rates went down, because of all the safety crap. I turned off the lane divergence because right after I got the truck I steered over to the right shoulder to straddle a pothole, and it tried to steer back into the pothole."