Drinking is bad

If the govt. keeps lowering the dui standards,it will force us drinkers to get driverless cars,there’s a method to their regulations.
 
wsuffa said:
SAE actually as a standard set of "Levels of Automation".

Ethics is a big part of it - see the Trolley Problem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

Ultimately - even considering ethics - the decision of choosing between two bad options ("who gets killed") will be determined by politics or a bureaucratic process and written in stone (blood), much as aviation regulations have been written.
Click to expand...

The engineering problem is getting it right. The ethical issue comes from waiting after you get it right until you cannot get it wrong.
 
wsuffa said:
Actually, one of the issues being discussed with autonomous cars is the so-called Trolley Problem. If a crash is inevitable, and there are two choices - one that harms pedestrians and one that harms the occupants of the car and perhaps another car - which one shall the autonomous vehicle choose.

Interesting ethical dilemma.
Click to expand...

This actually a pretty easy one to decide. The AV should hit the other vehicle and not the pedestrians. The reason being, both vehicles have safety systems to protect the occupants in case of a crash and they work pretty well. The pedestrians have nothing.
 
Dav8or said:
This actually a pretty easy one to decide. The AV should hit the other vehicle and not the pedestrians. The reason being, both vehicles have safety systems to protect the occupants in case of a crash and they work pretty well. The pedestrians have nothing.
Click to expand...
Agree. A better example would be hitting a pedestrian vs going off the side of a mountain road with a sheer cliff at the edge of the road. Safety systems won't help much if the fall is much more than a few feet.
 
Dav8or said:
This actually a pretty easy one to decide. The AV should hit the other vehicle and not the pedestrians. The reason being, both vehicles have safety systems to protect the occupants in case of a crash and they work pretty well. The pedestrians have nothing.
Click to expand...
Hit the peds. Dead people are cheaper lawsuits than injured people. Gotta think like a lawyer on these things.
 
172andyou said:
Probably not. Or at least not in a meaningful way.

1) Initially you won't know if a car is autonomous or not. So how will one know, at a glance, whether or not bullying will win. Even today, my current car has multiple sensors, multiple video cameras, assisted steering, lane following and smart cruise control. It is not a Tesla. The only difference between it and an autonomous car is the smarts of the autopilot. There is no way for someone to know, at a glance, whether I have a fancy trim package or a full autonomous vehicle.
Click to expand...

Actually, in the near future it will quite easy to spot an AV. Nobody but Elon Musk believes that you can achieve level 5 autonomy with just cameras and software and he has yet to deliver. The AVs that are likely to hit the roads in numbers, possibly as soon as next year, will use LIDAR arrays in conjunction with cameras. These LIDAR units are big and bulky and easy to spot on the roof of the car. Until they can miniaturize this tech so it can be concealed, it will be obvious and easy to detect.

In addition, the AVs the GM wants to put to work next year will also feature no steering wheel at the "driver's seat". I also bet they will be heavily branded with logos for PR purposes. They will be based on the Chevy Bolt, but significantly different in appearance so the bullies will be able to spot them blocks away.

2) Autonomous cars have black boxes (including video) that will demonstrate who the bully is after an incident. This will certainly prevent most people from trying to game the system, because the legal penalty will be high if they cause a wreck being a bully.
Click to expand...

It is true that they will have black boxes, and certainly cameras 360 degrees, these can be easily defeated with the good ol' ski mask. Why would someone want to cause so much chaos and me hem at personal risk? Easy. They either are, or used to be a cab driver, and Uber driver, a UPS driver, a bus driver, a teamster, etc. If autonomous vehicles really are ever adopted in large numbers, there will be a lot of bitter people standing in unemployment lines.
 
Clark1961 said:
Hit the peds. Dead people are cheaper lawsuits than injured people. Gotta think like a lawyer on these things.
Click to expand...

Not the case at all. Think of all the aviation lawsuits. It's always the dead person's loved ones that sue... and they win big.
 
JOhnH said:
I agree with this. We should ban all alcohol. We should pass a law to prohibit the manufacture, sale and consumption of alcohol.
Because that worked out so well the last time we tried it.
Click to expand...

Prohibition banned the manufacture, transportation and sale of alcohol, but not drinking it. All it took was a prescription by the doctor saying you needed medical alcohol.....Walgreens profited greatly by this.

http://www.history.com/news/10-things-you-should-know-about-prohibition
 
wsuffa said:
SAE actually as a standard set of "Levels of Automation".

Ethics is a big part of it - see the Trolley Problem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

Ultimately - even considering ethics - the decision of choosing between two bad options ("who gets killed") will be determined by politics or a bureaucratic process and written in stone (blood), much as aviation regulations have been written.
Click to expand...

I want off of the trolley problem:

INSHFLQ.png


Send help, there's more
>>
z89ntSk.jpg

======================================================
IWadpVg.jpg


U1jEHan.png

======================================================

eoLPOvv.png

======================================================
jkELzPA.jpg

======================================================
QdbX3Mu.png

======================================================
7kqktDJ.jpg

======================================================
aQg9CcC.png

======================================================
38sGbFU.jpg

======================================================
2IExjsv.png

======================================================
bTXYt3O.png

======================================================
iiy9xU6.png

======================================================
<<
 
Last edited:
DUI will be a moot point in the not too distant future with the advent of driverless cars. And if the government really cares about saving lives, they would be more focused on removing regulatory roadblocks that stand in the way of bringing this capability to market.

News Alert. A driverless car suffered a blue screen of death. It ran onto a sidewalk at a Democratic Party Rally killing several
 
wsuffa said:
Actually, one of the issues being discussed with autonomous cars is the so-called Trolley Problem. If a crash is inevitable, and there are two choices - one that harms pedestrians and one that harms the occupants of the car and perhaps another car - which one shall the autonomous vehicle choose.

Interesting ethical dilemma.
Click to expand...

Solution to this problem is simple. Occupants must be protected. Otherwise nobody will buy this vehicle. Ethics are irrelevant. Of course, swerving to protect occupants and killing a bystander makes you(car) liable....

The real problem is no matter what the vehicle is programmed to do, someone is dying and the manufacturer gets sued. This is true now, but damages awards are generally limited to insurance coverage. Car manufacturers have deep pockets.... this will get out of control rather quickly.
 
genna said:
Solution to this problem is simple. Occupants must be protected. Otherwise nobody will buy this vehicle. Ethics are irrelevant. Of course, swerving to protect occupants and killing a bystander makes you(car) liable....

The real problem is no matter what the vehicle is programmed to do, someone is dying and the manufacturer gets sued. This is true now, but damages awards are generally limited to insurance coverage. Car manufacturers have deep pockets.... this will get out of control rather quickly.
Click to expand...
unless the politicians exempt them from liability like was done in at least one other industry.
 
wsuffa said:
unless the politicians exempt them from liability like was done in at least one other industry.
Click to expand...

It's possible, but remains to be seen. I don't know how easy would it be to do that. And who would you then hold liable for accidents? Today, car manufacturers get in huge legal and financial trouble for things that aren't even their fault often. All it takes is a few publicized deaths and lawyers are off running and public is off not buying... See Audi, Toyota, Ford.... And these are at least arguable. If car kills someone a few times, it's going to be difficult to argue no fault in software.
 
Give your life over to the robots humans...they know what is best for us *bows down*
 
"I'm sorry, Dave, I can't do that..."
 
wsuffa said:
Actually, one of the issues being discussed with autonomous cars is the so-called Trolley Problem. If a crash is inevitable, and there are two choices - one that harms pedestrians and one that harms the occupants of the car and perhaps another car - which one shall the autonomous vehicle choose.

Interesting ethical dilemma.
Click to expand...

Last September I wrote a blog on this for Interference Technology. https://interferencetechnology.com/engineering-ethics-question-today/ So, what do you choose? There have been good arguments presented in posts on this thread. Not a simple question.
 
Ghery said:
Not a simple question.
Click to expand...
I think it should be handled somewhat like unemployment compensation (at least in Florida).

There will be accidents involving driverless cars. We need to accept that fact, but there will be (hopefully) many many fewer accidents, injuries and lost lives than with humans at the controls.

So I propose that each auto manufacturer contribute a certain amount for each autonomous car sold into a victims compensation fund. For each accident that can be blamed on a particular car, the contribution rate for that manufacturer goes up somewhat. Some sort of jury would decide how much each victim gets from the pool. Of course, if there are extenuating circumstances where fault can be placed elsewhere, then whoever is found to be at fault would also pay.
 
I'm also wondering if driverless cars will be programmed with the motor vehicle codes of all 50 states, plus all of the nations where it will be driven.
 
JOhnH said:
I think it should be handled somewhat like unemployment compensation (at least in Florida).

There will be accidents involving driverless cars. We need to accept that fact, but there will be (hopefully) many many fewer accidents, injuries and lost lives than with humans at the controls.

So I propose that each auto manufacturer contribute a certain amount for each autonomous car sold into a victims compensation fund. For each accident that can be blamed on a particular car, the contribution rate for that manufacturer goes up somewhat. Some sort of jury would decide how much each victim gets from the pool. Of course, if there are extenuating circumstances where fault can be placed elsewhere, then whoever is found to be at fault would also pay.
Click to expand...

If the driverless car kills someone we simply throw the car in jail :)
 
CC268 said:
If the driverless car kills someone we simply throw the car in jail :)
Click to expand...

Or the car should pay the ultimate price and be sent to the "Crushenator", then not recycle the parts. We all know that when killer robots are recycled those robots that have those recycled parts become killers themselves....
 
Last edited:
Matthew K said:
Nothing you can do, car's aren't protected by the 6th amendment...yet
Click to expand...

Sounds like we need to start working on 28th amendment! Maybe even a few for Cars Bill of Rights!;)
 
Palmpilot said:
I'm also wondering if driverless cars will be programmed with the motor vehicle codes of all 50 states, plus all of the nations where it will be driven.
Click to expand...
They will b connected to the cloud and download according to the location of the vehicle (like Google maps). At the same time, it will be reporting data about you back to Big Brother.

Actually, speed limits and strict legal compliance are one of the ethics questions to be resolved. Very few people drive the speed limit all the time and having an autonomous car strictly adhere can create dangerous situations on the road (until everything is autonomous). Adherence to lane markings is another - if avoiding an obstacle or pedestrian, or something like that causes a vehicle to stop, rather than intrude slightly on another lane like a human would do, what will happen to traffic?
 
If all cars were autonomous, would we need traffic lights?

I can imagine an intersection with cars going 50 mph or so in all directions. If each car keeps a suitable distance behind the next car, could all cars whiz through the intersection without stopping? Sort of like the old cowl mounted machine guns that were timed to shoot between the propeller blades? Then I imagine something going wrong and we have a 50 car group t-bone.
 
People with autonomous vehicles will lose their driving skills.
 
JOhnH said:
I can imagine an intersection with cars going 50 mph or so in all directions. If each car keeps a suitable distance behind the next car, could all cars whiz through the intersection without stopping? Sort of like the old cowl mounted machine guns that were timed to shoot between the propeller blades? Then I imagine something going wrong and we have a 50 car group t-bone.
Click to expand...

These type of cars would make demolition derby's very boring....
 
cowman said:
People with autonomous vehicles will lose their driving skills.
Click to expand...
But the people with no driving skills to begin with will be removed from controlling one ton+ killing machines.
 
Everyone knows that software never has any bugs and AI is foolproof. Just ask those software writer guys
 
JOhnH said:
If all cars were autonomous, would we need traffic lights?

I can imagine an intersection with cars going 50 mph or so in all directions. If each car keeps a suitable distance behind the next car, could all cars whiz through the intersection without stopping? Sort of like the old cowl mounted machine guns that were timed to shoot between the propeller blades? Then I imagine something going wrong and we have a 50 car group t-bone.
Click to expand...
With autonomous cars that talk to each other -and they will- there would be no need for traffic lights any more. Think of the cost savings. Think of the governments mandating retirement of non-autonomous cars in the interest of saving on infrastructure costs.
 
wsuffa said:
With autonomous cars that talk to each other -and they will- there would be no need for traffic lights any more. Think of the cost savings. Think of the governments mandating retirement of non-autonomous cars in the interest of saving on infrastructure costs.
Click to expand...
Think of the hackers using the intercar communications capability to hijack vehicles! :hairraise:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top