Should driverless cars be programmed to kill you?

I found this interesting and thought it might spur some interesting discussion.

Current reports suggest 10 million driverless cars could be on the road by 2020. The issue is this: In a few very rare scenarios, a driverless car may have to make a choice between protecting its occupants and protecting pedestrians. For example, if it's driving down a road at speed and someone runs out into the road, should it swerve into other traffic to avoid them, potentially injuring or killing the driver and passengers? Or should it make every attempt to stop, even though it knows it won’t be able to, killing the pedestrian?


http://www.iflscience.com/technology/the-fatal-moral-dilemma-posed-by-driverless-cars/

Give me a 69 all metal no computer Mustang any day... I'll pass on the smart cars... phones didn't take the smart word too well ... let's see how cars like the title. Lol I'll wait this one out even if I have to ride the trolley! Jk

I don't like the idea of self driving cars. I'm a bit of a control freak and I don't like the idea of a program being responsible for my transportation and my safety. My phone/computer/playstation/all other pieces of technology that I own have problems way too often for me to trust them with my life. Plus, I genuinely love driving. It's so much fun. There can be self driving cars, I just don't want to be in one.

As for the morality issue...that's tough. I suppose that the people in the car would usually have a better chance of surviving the resulting crash than the pedestrians have of surviving being hit, all situation based of course. So it might be "better" to have the car attempt to miss pedestrians. That might change depending on speed and surroundings. Not an easy question.

Hehe, nah. I'd worry we'd have idiots walking out into traffic knowing they would be ok, not caring about the impact it has on others!!!

Plus I think it would be a bad idea to cross into oncoming traffic, while obviously dramatically increasing the collision force there is also that approaching vehicles would be coming from further away and therefore less likely to be informing whatever sensors the car has about the size of the oncoming traffic. Bumping into an oncoming car at slow speed might be better for everyone under ideal conditions, but what if the occupant in the other car is already carrying an unrelated injury or what if the oncoming car is a petrol tanker. They are not doing anything 'wrong' and so I think its unfair to include them in the accident by choice.... unless the vehicle suffers a mechanical fault of its own, as then it might have better odds for everyone hitting another vehicle then an unprotected person or crowd.

So to you Q, the pedestrian is doing the wrong thing, so I think the car should aim for wherever the biggest gap is, brake, slide whatever, and if it is faced with going one way into oncoming traffic or the other way into the pedestrian - I'd program it the later because the pedestrian should not be there and perhaps the sensor is incorrect in its sensing (is it really a person!?). BUT would smart cars be talking to each other, in which case we'd have a greater margin for safety by all trying to make the biggest gap for the incident.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: I found this interesting and thought it might spur some interesting discussion.

Current reports suggest 10 million driverless cars could be on the road by 2020. The issue is this: In a few very rare scenarios, a driverless car may have to make a choice between protecting its occupants and protecting pedestrians. For example, if it's driving down a road at speed and someone runs out into the road, should it swerve into other traffic to avoid them, potentially injuring or killing the driver and passengers? Or should it make every attempt to stop, even though it knows it won’t be able to, killing the pedestrian?


http://www.iflscience.com/technology/the-fatal-moral-dilemma-posed-by-driverless-cars/

I don't like the idea that technology is going to be making moral decisions for us, and I like driving, so I won't be owning a driverless car until the day the government forces me to. A car can't tell the difference between people, e.g. a mother and baby versus an elderly person. As horrible as it may be, in a split second my brain is probably going to go mother and baby. A car can't make that kind of decision.

Goken wrote: I don't like the idea of self driving cars. I'm a bit of a control freak and I don't like the idea of a program being responsible for my transportation and my safety.

It's the next step to getting hover cars :lol:

Can you imagine the carnage with manually flown flying cars OMG :side:

That is a situation Ive always disliked. Tech messes up far far too much for me to trust it with my life or the lives of others. Imagine a chemical tankers sensor messing up and causing it to crash to save the "most" amount of lives but there was no actual danger to anything and it crashes leaking toxic chemicals for nothing. Besides I will not put my life into the hands of something that holds no ability for compassion or reason. In short Ill walk everywhere before I trust a machine that might kill me because of a pre-programmed algorithm. Frankly I would hold the programmers of the cars guilty for every death the car causes and hold no issue with sending them to jail for it.

Greater responsibility no accountability... smh I don't think we are ready for it... human beings. We still can't decide whether or not where to pee.. my own opinion though... we focus on way to many.. frolicking like ideas some times. The road and behind the wheel... a place to relax and let us do the driving... hmm....still thinking...

Further issue. These cars would all have to be on some kind of network, I'm assuming. It seems like the kind of thing where they could be accessed remotely. What if some crazy hacker decided to mess with the programming? Heck, the idea of someone remotely controlling my vehicle at all is too much for me. They're already out there. Cars with stuff like OnStar where they can remotely shut the car down if it's reported stolen.

:laugh:

I just re-read my last post and now I feel like some crazy conspiracy theorist. I'm not saying I'm wrong, I just think I sound a bit nuts! :laugh: