1nterceptor

"When they crash, self-driving Mercedes will be programmed to save the driver, and not the person or people they hit. Say the car is spinning out of control, and on course to hit a crowd queuing at a bus stop. It can correct its course, but in doing so, it'll kill a cyclist for sure. What does it do? Mercedes's answer to this take on the classic Trolley Problem is to hit whichever one is least likely to hurt the people inside its cars. If that means taking out a crowd of kids waiting for the bus, then so be it."

https://www.fastcoexist.com/3064539/...ave-the-driver

ItsJustMe

I don't think cars are anywhere near the point where the trolley problem even makes any kind of sense. People think that they're making moral judgements, or even that the programmers are programming some kind of morality into the system. I doubt you will find any programmers even speculating in these cases. At this point in time, the systems are going to be geared towards staying in the lane, recognizing and avoiding or braking for obstacles. We're just barely at that point now. We are many years from the point where a car can recognize an obstacle as a person or have any concept what that means. It's just a thing it's been told to try to avoid hitting. I don't think they are even at the point where they can look ahead to see if avoiding one obstacle will make them hit another. Maybe. If so probably the best they can do is just emergency brake and avoid the closest obstacle, then the next one, etc.

The big win though is that they're less likely to get into these situations in the first place. They're more likely to know that there's ice in the road, or loose gravel. They can use radar and see through a hedge to see that there's a cyclist approaching the intersection that is not visible to the eye. They are not as smart as humans, but they have more senses than humans do.

FBinNY 

+1 This is purely a strawman argument based on a hypothetical.

The AI in cars isn't sophisticated enough for complex moral questions. It's simply programmed to avoid obstacles, without deep considerations for what they are. It might also be programmed to attempt to orient the car so if/when there's a collision it'll be end on where passenger protection is better than broadside.

One can posit all sorts of strawmen to show the dangers of AI crash avoidance systems. Instead of a the brick wall vs crowd at a bus stop, we might consider the question of brick wall vs. 1,000' cliff. Odds are the AI will opt for the cliff since the scanners don't see an obstacle there.

In any case, these are all Plan C hypotheticals, since Plan A is to maintain control, and Plan B to restore control and remain on the roadway.

Rollfast

I assure you that you would also hope to save yourself in any such event and the Trolley Problem is rhetorical with no real application in reality, it's merely an ethics exercise with no true answer.



What you are objecting to is the option to control the vehicle yourself, which is also invalid when the machine is mainly concerned with applying the brakes and maintaining traction control to stop the car. That is the practical extent of current collision avoidance systems. Morality is not an issue because it is not engineered in.

TheLibrarian

Leaves me wondering who thought self driving cars were a good idea in the first place.

Leisesturm

Indeed. I also sense a great deal of push-back against the inevitability of the autonomous automobile. Anyone who has been in an accident when someone else was driving, no matter how minor, should be informed as to the low likelihood of being able to "take over" and save things. I read a recent account of an accident in which a pregnant woman was the passenger in the car her husband was driving. An oncoming car lost control and hit them head on. She believes her husbands final act was to steer their car such that he would be killed, but she, and their unborn child, would be spared. Well I don't know. Its a nice thought, but I suspect it was a very close thing that she was not also killed. I do not believe the driver of the other car was killed either, so there is also some chance that the husband driver could also have survived. That is likely the outcome the husband was working to achieve. But who is going to argue with her now?

I'm hanged as to why I should pay a lot of money for a luxury self-driving car and have it NOT want to make my survival it's prime directive? I mean... is not the vehicle occupants survival the prime directive of present automobiles? Do you suppose airbags and anti-lock brakes were invented to protect the other cars on the road??!! When people take a 6,000lb Escalade to the six car pile up on the Expressway and survive it does anyone criticize their vehicle choice even if others did not survive in their Hyundai Accents or Honda Civics. Do you see the logic fail of hating the designer/programmers of autonomous vehicles? Tunes will change when the possibility of owning one becomes more of a reality. Right now few can envision this. "Other" people will have them and will therefore possibly be able to hurt us with them. Newsflash: they can do that now!.

genec

Anyone who has taken a good look at the death rates of human driven cars...

If the death rate can be cut by as little as 10%, self driving cars will have proven their worth...

Rollfast

Not if they keep killing others to save you, and not if humans are interacting with it outside the vehicle...


Crash avoidance features make much more sense, deal with the human in the car as they drive. Sense when they are drunk/impaired and stay off, call for help.

FBinNY 

I have few worries about self driving cars. Not because I think they're better or worse in any way, just that I don't expect significant acceptance for quite a while. One reason is that in a mix with human controlled the self driving cars will be at a disadvantage, since they need to be programmed to be cautious or passive, and will defer to humans who are a bit more aggressive.

They'll probably gain greatest acceptance on freeways, where things are more laminar, and that's not a concern for me as a cyclist.

In any case, there are many social and legal hurdles, such as ultimate responsibility for a crash, to be settled before they can be released for private ownership and use.

Meanwhile, the related technology is already being introduced into the fleet, and hose systems, such as impending crash alarms and passive braking can only be good.

IMO- self driving for cars off the highway is a misplaced goal, but the using the technology to improve human control can happen sooner rather than later and will have a tremendous impact in reducing traffic injuries for both vehicle occupants, and those outside.

canklecat

Classic moot argument. Easily bypassed by confining such a vehicle (or that vehicle's AI paradigm) to usage only on roads with other vehicles. Otherwise, alter the AI model to suit varying conditions, and design infrastructure specifically to provide equal accommodation to cyclists and pedestrians.

Dave Cutter

Self driving car doesn't care about you

This thread may be in the running for the 2016 Luddite award.

unterhausen

I have never thought that self-driving cars were anything other than engineering hubris. And now that we have seen what Tesla has unleashed on us, that has been multiplied many-fold. But I feel like the Mercedes position is probably the right one. Nobody seems to get to the part where he said that he's designing cars so they never get in the position to have to make choices between pedestrians and occupants in the first place. The idea that a car would kill the occupants in order to save pedestrians always seemed like a recipe for disaster.

To me, the discussion about self driving cars is always an assumed perfect car vs. obviously imperfect drivers. But what really needs to happen to make self-driving cars into something that can be widely fielded is to rebuild the road system into something that fits their needs. This is ridiculous. There are much better transportation alternatives.

DreamRider85

What is the best hope for the future of safe cycling in the far future? What's the best idea you've ever heard that has a remote chance? My personal dream would be if there were bike highways everywhere, but unfortunately it's just a dream.

genec

As if human drivers wouldn't kill you, a mere cyclist, to save themselves...

And you are denying that self driving cars are a good thing if the overall death rate goes down... Just how does that work? Airbags killed babies, and yet they are mandatory in cars... why? Because overall, they save lives.

Dave Cutter

Oh heck no. This popular concept of AI (in cars) is very 1990's sci-fi.

This isn't something that is going to happen.... the time has here. Self driving cars are here. Still new to some... but it isn't experimental technology anymore. The world has a few self driving cars out there. Would'a, could'a, should'a ideas are long past.

AI is just going to get better and better. The idea of millions of people buzzing around driving there own cars will seem ridiculous in a few decades. The public will openly wonder how people of this era tolerated the carnage before self-driving cars took over.

Rollfast

Too many AIs ruin the soup.


Elmer Ludd only wanted to kill the wabbits with an older shotgun...


Not having a crash does even better.


Little consolation because we'll be dead, but a great sentiment.

Leisesturm

You wish. Self driving cars are on the Mother of All Fast Tracks and will be on the road, large and in charge in less than 20 years. A lot less. I plan to be around. If you lay off the Cuban Cigars you should be around too.

keyven

In theory, it's a "scary thought" but in a practical sense it has an infinitesimal chance of happening. It sure makes for a great scaremongering news article though. Just like how the Tesla self-driven car that slammed into a truck is held up as an example of how we'll all die if we let vehicles drive themselves.

A far more concrete possibility is such cars would have saved or prevented dozens or hundreds of accidents that might have happened with a distracted/drunk/sleepy/careless driver behind them.

work4bike

Your freakin' bike doesn't care about you

jefnvk

It is hard to take an article with such hyperbole seriously. After browsing a few more articles on the site, it is hard to take the site seriously. Nothing but very opinionated articles from a very particular mindset, likely targeting a very specific demographic.

I dunno what cars will end up being programmed to do if a collision is unavoidable, but it will with almost certainty be an industry standard procedure. What I do know is that computers driving cars will put them in that scenario FAR LESS frequently than humans driving.

In any case, it is a rare human that is going to willfully run their car into a wall at 35MPH to avoid a pedestrian with a split second decision. Not because they are horrible people, but because willfully running your vehicle into a wall goes against every natural reaction in your driving experience.

1989Pre 

This whole "wireless" thing has gotten out of control, what with the radiation, laziness, drones, indulgence, driverless cars, cell phone use causing an epidemic of crashes...Childhood leukemia from WiFi in schools...
I find this all unrealistic and counter-productive.

1989Pre 

If you think so, you've been listening to the wrong people.

jefnvk

Do I think people may take evasive action that leads them to hit a wall? Absolutely. DO I think if the exact options you give a person involve slamming on the brakes and hoping the pedestrian jumps out of the way, or willfully running their car into a wall, that the majority of people are going to willfully run themselves into a wall? Absolutely not.

ThermionicScott 

Dave Cutter

Hey! That Sir is a step too far! All my bicycles Love me... I can tell. And I love them too.

OK maybe that one, older bike isn't what she used to be... but we have a familiarity.... like old shoes. It's a comfortable relationship. OK I'll confess. To be entirely honest when I bought that bike... I was too young to make a lifetime commitment... we both were. We've grown apart.

But the other bikes Love me! Well... the red Cannondale has seemed a little distance lately.....