driverless car scenario: the best option is for you to die

[HeroZero]

Option I don't have a fucking clue what is going on now.

[Daita Tetsu]

Option C. All the other driverless cars around you detect and process the threat and maneuver in a way that allows for the safety of all present.

^
thats really all there is to it

unless you're a congressman and under a bridge at the time, then I vote Option D: Ejection seat

[Adam Jensen]

Option J: The truck transforms into Optimus Prime and kicks Michael Bay into orbit

[Daita Tetsu]

Option H. Let Jesus take the wheel......wait there is no wheel....is there?

Dont do it, his blood is wine. Thats like 50 times over the legal limit. If his dad wasnt god, hed be dead.

[Ealyssa]

Option C. All the other driverless cars around you detect and process the threat and maneuver in a way that allows for the safety of all present.

Just this. If 100% of the cars are driverless/connected that just don't happen. The trafficnet will just prevent 99% of accidents. And when the inavoidable occure. The second it occures, computers will calculate response maneuver to every single vehicle arround the accident in a radius of X hundreds miles (for the nearest more urgent avoiding to the fartest reduce speed by X% and/or take another route)

When driverless vehicle will be a thing, human driving will be the last threat on the road.

[Spl4sh3r]

The car wouldn't know about all the traffic in the other lane until its there so it would have to go to the other lane in theory. Guessing is never something that should be done, "oh I might kill someone if I change lane, but if I don't someone will certainly die".

[Korgoth]

If the other people were in driverless cars their cars would swerve off to the median, avoiding the accident as well. Or if the other drivers were just you know paying attention, they could move out of the way.

Not sure why anyone would chose a guaranteed crash over a possible crash, let alone a guaranteed fatality over a possible fatality.

[idunnowatdo]

I thought with driverless cars they still have someone sitting in the driver seat just encase iirc when they talked about the trucks they had someone in the driver seat. Either way no in fuck im getting into a driverless car where there is no kind of human input or no human can take over.

@adan jensen you da real mvp. Just got back to playing deux ex 2 :3

[Laila]

I'm going with option K: Chuck Norris.

[Masark]

Let's say a semi truck jackknifes in front of you while you are riding in your driverless car. The driverless car could save your life by swerving into another lane. But doing so will jeopardize the lives of others driving in those other lanes. Should the driverless car kill you by plowing into the wreck, or should it risk killing others to save your life?

Any particular reason why the driverless car, which would be following at a safe distance, wouldn't simply be able to hit the brakes and stop?

Or is this another "Driverless cars are bad because they fail in a situation that they would never get themselves into!" exclamation?

[Arkenaw]

Engage thrusters and fly over the wreckage to safety

[melodramocracy]

Ban non-driverless cars.

That won't ever happen. Not ever.

But we can come up with an even better scenario, one where a pedestrian decides to run across the street in front of your driverless car. Does it hit the pedestrian, or swerve and risk a collision with another vehicle?

- - - Updated - - -

I thought with driverless cars they still have someone sitting in the driver seat just encase iirc when they talked about the trucks they had someone in the driver seat. Either way no in fuck im getting into a driverless car where there is no kind of human input or no human can take over.

The whole selling point of driverless cars is the person who would have a manual override option doesn't need to be paying attention to what's going on. If that wasn't the case, there'd be no real purpose to the tech.

[Deleted]

I never said driverless cars were a bad thing.

I'm wondering what you think the driverless car should do?

At this point, the Driverless part of the Driverless car is totally irrelevant.

[chazus]

The question fundamentally ignores how driverless cars work.

It's like asking "You must eat one of two fruit. One fruit has a bomb in it. The other fruit has a remote detonator in it. This is a totally real and serious situation that might happen."

[idunnowatdo]

That won't ever happen. Not ever.

But we can come up with an even better scenario, one where a pedestrian decides to run across the street in front of your driverless car. Does it hit the pedestrian, or swerve and risk a collision with another vehicle?

- - - Updated - - -



The whole selling point of driverless cars is the person who would have a manual override option doesn't need to be paying attention to what's going on. If that wasn't the case, there'd be no real purpose to the tech.

i get where youre coming from but it does not seem like its for me. iirc most of the driverless cars had their own roads so i wonder how they would do people transport and big rig transport on the same road. if it is a hybrid tbh i wouldnt have any issue just because of how they can stop on a dime. like litterally you can go from 80 to 0 in like 3 seconds in a prius so i imagine the tech carries over to this system

and i agree with Chaz on this. this whole scenario is basically pick the outcome that is less shit.

[Grummgug]

Not sure why anyone would chose a guaranteed crash over a possible crash, let alone a guaranteed fatality over a possible fatality.

If the driverless car stays its course, its passenger dies in the wreck.

If it swerves out of the way into another lane, it could potentially kill no-one. Or that move could kill several people.

Do you program the driverless car to definitely kill 1 person, or kill anywhere from 0-5 people in this scenario? How do you program the car?

- - - Updated - - -

i get where youre coming from but it does not seem like its for me. iirc most of the driverless cars had their own roads so i wonder how they would do people transport and big rig transport on the same road. if it is a hybrid tbh i wouldnt have any issue just because of how they can stop on a dime. like litterally you can go from 80 to 0 in like 3 seconds in a prius so i imagine the tech carries over to this system

and i agree with Chaz on this. this whole scenario is basically pick the outcome that is less shit.

But which outcome is worse? 1 person definitely dying, or playing russian roulette with 5 lives?

- - - Updated - - -

At this point, the Driverless part of the Driverless car is totally irrelevant.

No because if a human is driving, you can dismiss the decision the human made to just panicking.

The driverless car's decision is something that cool heads must calculate and plan out in advance. They are going to want the driverless car to make a choice one way or the other. Which is best?

[mickybrighteyes]

Actually option D, the truck never jackknifed as it too was a driverless truck.

option E... all the cars fail cause anti-driverless car radicals hacked the systems and force the scenario.

[chazus]

But which outcome is worse? 1 person definitely dying, or playing russian roulette with 5 lives?

So just ASK THAT. Remove the 'driverless car' thing entirely, because its a situation that doesn't apply to those. THAT is your question.

The driverless car's decision is something that cool heads must calculate and plan out in advance. They are going to want the driverless car to make a choice one way or the other.

Again, you're ignoring the fact that there are more choices, and more options.

Driverless cars can still be taken over. If you see a wreck, you COULD take control and.. you know. Do something else. Furthermore, there are more options. Why cant the car just stop? Why can't the car pick another course? Why can't the car do the 18 other things that it would be able to do in that situation? Why do you HAVE to die if you hit the truck?

It's just a bad question.

[Grummgug]

So just ASK THAT. Remove the 'driverless car' thing entirely, because its a situation that doesn't apply to those. THAT is your question.


Again, you're ignoring the fact that there are more choices, and more options.

Driverless cars can still be taken over. If you see a wreck, you COULD take control and.. you know. Do something else. Furthermore, there are more options. Why cant the car just stop? Why can't the car pick another course? Why can't the car do the 18 other things that it would be able to do in that situation? Why do you HAVE to die if you hit the truck?

It's just a bad question.

What is your problem? You're really hostile for a simple question on an internet message board. Maybe step away from the computer and take a break. Sheesh.

[chazus]

Hostile? I'm not sure where I was 'hostile' unless you're misinterpreting emphasis for... I dunno.. angry? >.>

I'm just pointing out that if you wanted a good,useful, thought provoking answer, the question needs to be better. Unless you could care less about the answer.