I've recently read that the development of self driving vehicles is becoming a reality. People have even proposed that we will see driverless trucks on the roads within 10 years.
Let's assume that all the technical obstacles are overcome and cars and tracks can get from A to B without driver intervention.
My question is an ethical one.
Scenario - A driverless truck is navigating a major road and a woman pushing a pram steps out in front of the vehicle. Would the smart truck avoid the pedestrian and sacrifice the truck and occupants to save the woman and child or would it, unable to stop, plow right through saving the vehicle and occupants?
So, the broad question is - Should a driverless vehicle give priority to others over occupants and how would you feel being in that vehicle?
Ahh yes, I read that article too.
I reckon minimum fatalities. More pedestrians - save the pedestrians. More passengers, save the passengers. When there's equal number of both, calculate the odds of survival for all persons for either options and make the choice with the best chances. Or even do that anyway. Two properly restrained passengers of a vehicle with well engineered safety systems should be more likely to survive than a single pedestrian being impacted by said vehicle.
Yes, it's a difficult one. I'd feel uneasy knowing that my car might send me over a cliff to avoid hitting a car full of people. Then again, what would the majority of people do in the same situation if they was in control of the car? Not sure how altruistic people are.
I've worked it out. Just like you have a dial for your air conditioning in the car you have an altruism dial. If you're feeling particularly cranky you can set it to 100% "me" and at the other end of the scale "them" if you're feeling particularly selfless. This puts onus on the driver, or am I just being flippant?
I can see abuse scanarios where some enterprising young lads load up a minivan full of friends and careen around the roads watching single occupancy vehicles suicide off everywhere in order to save those poor wretched fella's - for the greater good of course... 
Driverless cars will be way before a 10 year time frame...The main players are sinking billions into this area right now. Exponential age is nearly upon is...
driverless mining trucks been going for ages. i worked with a driverless moxy, made for some pretty hairy dashes across the highway was building with timbers when realiseing it wasnt slowing down. 
v
A moot point. A driverless car will detect it is in a location where pedesrltrians are about and drop to an approptiate speed. At that speed a crash into a brick wall is survivable.
Bring them on we'll all be safer. After the Cowboys' game on monday. The mass-exiting crowd crossing a now-busy two lane arterial road. Is this a gap? Yes/ no / yes / no. Scary. A 70 kph speed limit, normally no pedestrians. Do you think anyone slowed down?
I don't like it.
Look at how many backups are built into fly by wire aircraft and they still have the odd problem. We won't get that level of tech in road vehicles for a long while
What about when the GPS fails or the sensors or whatever keeps it where it should be?
When u have a medical emergency can you override everything and go bush, drive fast or whatever?
it will be safer than today ..... today we suffer sharing the road with people accessing their computers . just let the computers drive the car , much safer .
Can't see it happening ..... How will the car companies avoid being sued in the event one or more of their vehicles goes rogue. Mounts the kerb and runs down a group of school kids on an excursion. ( as an extreme case )
Select to expand quoteMark _australia said...
I don't like it.
Look at how many backups are built into fly by wire aircraft and they still have the odd problem. We won't get that level of tech in road vehicles for a long while
What about when the GPS fails or the sensors or whatever keeps it where it should be?
The auto pilot (not the fly by wire - which has been in cars for a number of years) needs redundancies for a number of variables that have no effect on a car. It also doesn't think for itself or make decisions like a driverless car would need to. Very different ball game.
If all cars were driverless I'd imagine it'd be much safer, particularly if they communicate.
I read somewhere the Google car crashed a number of times, but not once was it at fault. It was due to other peoples driving and the car not having human intuition to avoid the situation.
I purely don't like it because I enjoy driving. But it would probably increase safety and I'd imagine reduce travel times substantially once it's up and going.
If you'd like to ride a driverless vehicule
My missus can replicate the exsperience
Select to expand quotecauncy said..
If you'd like to ride a driverless vehicule
My missus can replicate the exsperience
mines got this ****ing deal where either one foot is on the accelerator or one foots on the break THATS IT no other ****ing option! made her change her own break pads and rotors bloody hussy timed it and can change em quicker then me!?!?
Select to expand quoteDawn Patrol said..Mark _australia said...
I don't like it.
Look at how many backups are built into fly by wire aircraft and they still have the odd problem. We won't get that level of tech in road vehicles for a long while
What about when the GPS fails or the sensors or whatever keeps it where it should be?
The auto pilot (not the fly by wire - which has been in cars for a number of years) needs redundancies for a number of variables that have no effect on a car. It also doesn't think for itself or make decisions like a driverless car would need to. Very different ball game.
If all cars were driverless I'd imagine it'd be much safer, particularly if they communicate.
I read somewhere the Google car crashed a number of times, but not once was it at fault. It was due to other peoples driving and the car not having human intuition to avoid the situation.
I purely don't like it because I enjoy driving. But it would probably increase safety and I'd imagine reduce travel times substantially once it's up and going.
I was referring to electrical signal to actuators instead of cable or hydraulic. Not autopilot. So far fly by wire in cars has not been steering input, and yes they are not making decisions.
If the cars communicate sounds great, but how many times do you see a glitchy digital TV signal or phone drops out briefly? It only takes the tiniest loss...
Now imagine a total loss of steering due to a minor fault....
A driverless car is more risky than autopilot IMO
Yeh I thought that might have been what you mean after !
I guess nothing is foolproof. There are plenty of mechanical breakdowns that can cause grief. It is potentially very dangerous and perhaps we will fall apart with it rushing into it all too quickly.
Totally agree it's more risky. The decision making aspect I'm sure will be roughly debated.
People surveyed said that overwhelmingly they were in favour of other people being in driverless cars but they themselves would not get into a driverless car.
Whoa!!!
Several hours after you posted this thread...
www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/motoring/tesla-autopilot-driver-was-reportedly-watching-harry-potter-when-he-was-hit-and-killed/news-story/eb97718fe50bd5c95da5eaf25436b6a5
(Condolances to the family of the victim)
It was the first Tesla fatality in 139 million auto driven miles. The US average is a fatality every 94 million. Seems a white truck on a white background crossed a divided road, neither the Tesla or the driver detected it. Maybe an auto truck would have given way,
Select to expand quoteIan K said..
It was the first Tesla fatality in 139 million auto driven miles. The US average is a fatality every 94 million. Seems a white truck on a white background crossed a divided road, neither the Tesla or the driver detected it. Maybe an auto truck would have given way,
Back to drawing boards i thing.
Tesla relay on cameras but other system on lidar ( laser radar) ( google driverless car)
You could not trick lidar with white paint, but cost a bit more.
Finally this driverless car nonsense makes sense...or does it really ?
According to Elon Musk master plan:
"..When true self-driving is approved by regulators, it will mean that you will be able to summon your Tesla from pretty much anywhere. Once it picks you up, you will be able to sleep, read or do anything else enroute to your destination.
You will also be able to add your car to the Tesla shared fleet just by tapping a button on the Tesla phone app and have it generate income for you while you're at work or on vacation, significantly offsetting and at times potentially exceeding the monthly loan or lease cost. This dramatically lowers the true cost of ownership to the point where almost anyone could own a Tesla. Since most cars are only in use by their owner for 5% to 10% of the day, the fundamental economic utility of a true self-driving car is likely to be several times that of a car which is not..."
Yup, just act super excited about some fantasy future idea and talk as if it's a sure thing and people will send you cash. $$$Billions !
Select to expand quoteDawn Patrol said..
I purely don't like it because I enjoy driving.
I don't enjoy driving as much as I enjoy being driven, so I am eagerly awaiting it.
Select to expand quotedmitri said..
Finally this driverless car nonsense makes sense...or does it really ?
According to Elon Musk master plan:
"..When true self-driving is approved by regulators, it will mean that you will be able to summon your Tesla from pretty much anywhere. Once it picks you up, you will be able to sleep, read or do anything else enroute to your destination.
You will also be able to add your car to the Tesla shared fleet just by tapping a button on the Tesla phone app and have it generate income for you while you're at work or on vacation, significantly offsetting and at times potentially exceeding the monthly loan or lease cost. This dramatically lowers the true cost of ownership to the point where almost anyone could own a Tesla. Since most cars are only in use by their owner for 5% to 10% of the day, the fundamental economic utility of a true self-driving car is likely to be several times that of a car which is not..."
Yup, just act super excited about some fantasy future idea and talk as if it's a sure thing and people will send you cash. $$$Billions !
So you send your tesla out in to the world to earn you some income... who stops it from coming back full of spew and ciggy smoke and god knows what else from the bucks party that booked it?
My kids are bad enough for trashing the car - and I HAVE to take them in it. 
^ can be much worse than that..
knock knock in the middle of the night..the cops with a picture of your car..."is it yours?"..
"..yeah..but I haven't seen it for a few days.."
"we are afraid your car is in big trouble, you better tell us what you know.."
Car companies in Australia cant even release new models with up to date sat nav maps (Ford, Im talking about you) I wonder how they will approach the need for sat nav with constant updates, considering their map updates at the moment cost the same as purchasing a new unit altogether (yes Ford, still talking about you).
Then there's the other issue's, such as not even bothering to put roads on the maps and sat nav views showing the driver is driving somewhere off in the bush and not on the road. That would be a scary thought with a driverless cars swerving off the road to "follow" where they see the road as being.
Somewhat like the Australian car salesman trying to sell a car based on it's radios ability to use wifi to tune into music stations. Pointless at the moment.
