Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Driverless cars :- who to save first?

T

Tech198

Cancelled
Original poster
Mar 21, 2011
15,915
2,152
I read an article allot driverless cars, and how the idea, in the future, it would be fully automated, with no driver at all behind the wheel to feel "safe" :-

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-05/driverless-cars-ethical-debate-you-decide/9836786

I found it interesting that if you answer these quesion the results under each question a car would see a pedestrian crossing the road that, and didn't have time to slow down, it would rather take your own life, but save theirs.

On the other hand if *you* were the one in the same situation, the decision would be reversed... Save "us"

My only question, if what if u have 4 or 5 people in these cars ..... Father, mother and kids...

You'd have a different diction altogether..

Something that a human driver would have otherwise known about in some cases. Bugs are there, bit I don't thing we would fee save without *someone* behind the wheel.. I doubt we have got to that stage just yet of being totally driverless. And until these tings are done better, probably never will.

I'm not saying the situation would be entirely different that a human couldn't react fast enough, just that we are more aware of these situations, than autonomous and/or fully driverless cars.
 
I love driving my cars, but I also love technology and am excited to see where autonomous cars will go.

I also wonder about this stuff, related to computer vs human reactions to things.

The subject reminds me of a part of the movie "iRobot", where a robot calculates the chances of survival between two characters after a car accident. A human reaction would normally be to save the child, but a computer things logically with math and saves a grown man, but not the girl that statically had a lower chance of surviving, so she is killed.

A scenario which is more related to cars would an autonomous vehicle choosing the best path to take when avoiding a head on collision with an on coming vehicle. One path would lead to a collision, the other would lead to hitting a pedestrian/child on a bike/ woman pushing stroller/ child chasing a ball.

Most humans' natural reaction would be to avoid the pedestrian, even if that meant turning toward an on coming car.

Computers on the other hand, might calculate the impact of the collision of a stationary object versus doubling the impact of an on-coming vehicle.


Another thought, an autonomous car would stop for would-be hijackers/muggers, but a human would keep on driving. I hope it could be programed to avoid bad neighborhoods. Apple Maps, and Waze cannot as far as I know.



Another thing I think about it fault and recourse.

If an accident happen, and a human drive is at fault, there is system in place for recourse. Once autonomous driving is widespread, and something happens where the autonomous vehicle is at fault, is the owner responsible? The manufacture?
 
Maybe its something like in iRobot and it calculates potential survival rates.
 
That isn't how any of this works. The computer isn't counting the number of people, or whether they are adults or kids, or nuns on a bus, or a bag of kittens, or a garbage truck, or a moose, or whatever.

The computer and sensors are simply trying to determine if the road is clear or if there is an object in the path. If there is an object, it will attempt to avoid it by safely navigating around the object or stopping. If it cannot do those things, it will try to minimize damage to both parties by avoiding/slowing as much as possible.

This whole thought experiment is just something that the media keeps bringing up because they are thinking of the AI as an artificial person with human-like awareness and making morality decisions, but really it's just a computerized sensor package doing nothing other than trying to avoid colliding with road obstacles.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: chown33
If governments cared about pedestrians, they would ban SUVs in cities.
 
D.T. said:
The autonomous vehicle jails will be full!
Click to expand...
This might not be too far off. If a autonomous car gets into an accident that it shouldn't have and the issue cannot be corrected, it might be impounded indefinitely until it is destroyed.
[doublepost=1530841538][/doublepost]
cube said:
If governments cared about pedestrians, they would ban SUVs in cities.
Click to expand...
Why?

If pedestrians cared about themselves, this would prevent a lot of pedestrians related accidents.

I hate driving in cities, too many jaywalkers and people that walk right out in front of a moving vehicle.

Maybe the government should have stricter penalties on jaywalkers.
 
cube said:
Pedestrian deaths in the US have increased 46% between 2009 and 2016 and this is attributed to the popularity of SUVs.
Click to expand...
I have read many similar stories, but all with different %.

Every article I have read attributed increased pedestrian deaths to distracted driving, such as people texting, or looking at their cell phones.

Maybe the government should ban cell phones in city limits.
 
  • Like
Reactions: D.T.
vertical smile said:
I have read many similar stories, but all with different %.

Every article I have read attributed increased pedestrian deaths to distracted driving, such as people texting, or looking at their cell phones.

Maybe the government should ban cell phones in city limits.
Click to expand...

This makes more sense. A larger frontal area is actually safer for pedestrians. What kills is head injury caused by being flipped up onto the hood or windshield.
 
vertical smile said:
Every article I have read attributed increased pedestrian deaths to distracted driving, such as people texting, or looking at their cell phones.
Click to expand...

I see enough close calls every day to say that you can often fundamentally assign blame to both the driver and pedestrian-both for being too distracted by their phones or whatever to not notice what's going on around them.

Of course, I can't think of a case where the driver WOULDN'T be at fault, but let's say hypothetically I'm driving down one of my cities's "artery" surface roads at 35mph(legal speed limit, and also the typical driving speed due to light timing). Even paying close attention(scanning the road in front of me on all sides several lengths out) I've had a couple of near misses with pedestrians or bicycles "suddenly" popping out between two parked cars. I've avoided every one by getting out of the way as much as I could(switching lanes if safe to do so), slowing down as much as possible, and using my horn to get their attention. Still, it's enough to shake me up and make me want to avoid surface streets as much as I can.

BTW, I work at a university and the campus-wide speed limit is 10mph. I actually follow it, and have been nearly run over for doing it, and the campus police do enforce it when they have the time. I'd consider it a safe and prudent speed given the sheer volume of pedestrian traffic. Considering how many drivers(mostly students) I see doing 40+, I'm shocked that there aren't frequent pedestrian collisions.
 
BorderingOn said:
This makes more sense. A larger frontal area is actually safer for pedestrians. What kills is head injury caused by being flipped up onto the hood or windshield.
Click to expand...
It is the height, design, and mass of SUVs that makes these accidents less survivable.

In the EU, there're design rules to mitigate the problem a bit.

Just the other day I watched an American review of a German station wagon (not even an SUV) that found the explosive bolts under the hood to be weird.

A study would certainly have looked at what type of vehicle was involved in each accident.

So, we have SUV danger deniers now?
 
A survey of 12 studies found this kind of bulky vehicles 2-3 times more likely to kill a pedestrian.
 
I'm a UK resident and here in Europe the trend is to lower the cars.

State side, it seems the trend is to lift their trucks.

Which is more dangerous for the pedestrian I do not know.
But would these kind of mods not drastically effect the sensors on autonomous cars?

Autonomous cars would not be modified like todays cars.
So in a way that make it safer as then the driver would not mod the car to have more power etc that they cannot handle.
The car will only do the limit or less, if it has 90BHP or 900BHP!

The modified car parts industry will not be happy if we all by these computer controlled cars.

nobody is the perfect driver but I like to drive rather than a computer.
 
Side note: our new Durango R/T has a semi-active lane control, so you still have to be very engaged, but it's just a little warning/nudge you might be drifting out of your lane (mostly used for long highway trips).

vertical smile said:
I have read many similar stories, but all with different %.

Every article I have read attributed increased pedestrian deaths to distracted driving, such as people texting, or looking at their cell phones.

Maybe the government should ban cell phones in city limits.
Click to expand...

Yep. Maybe it's the propensity for the type of people who own SUVs to be distracted (too busy, many passengers, doing "chores").

It's like the old thing about cops stopping red sportscars more often ... come to find out (no surprise), it wasn't the color/type of car, it was the _type_ of people who tend to buy them that were more prone to speeding.
 
Last edited:
D.T. said:
Maybe it's the propensity for the type of people who own SUVs to be distracted (too busy, many passengers, doing "chores").
Click to expand...

I don't think there is a correlation between owning a SUV and distracting driving. I think it is just distracted driving and distracted pedestrians. I would blame the iPhone before the type of car.

I think people want to blame SUVs because there are more SUV related accidents than there was in the past. There are more SUVs on the road than ever before, so it makes sense that there would be more accidents with them.

For example, there are more accidents involving Tesla model cars than there was 20 years ago, is Tesla to blame for these increased accidents? Or is it that there are a bunch of Teslas on the road now, and it only makes sense that some would be involved in accidents.

But, I don't that because the driver was driving a SUV, that was was generally to blame for the accident or a death related to the accident.

Now, certain type of accidents, such as roll-over types, I think there is a correlation with SUV. Maybe there might be a correlation of a survival rate of a pedestrian-related accident and SUVs being involved. But, a solution to ban SUVs in a city is not just silly, it would be just a bandaid.

It would make sense to address the root cause of the deaths, which would be closer to distracted driving and distracted pedestrians, than that people drive a SUVs.
 
vertical smile said:
I don't think there is a correlation between owning a SUV and distracting driving. I think it is just distracted driving and distracted pedestrians. I would blame the iPhone before the type of car.

I think people want to blame SUVs because there are more SUV related accidents than there was in the past. There are more SUVs on the road than ever before, so it makes sense that there would be more accidents with them.

For example, there are more accidents involving Tesla model cars than there was 20 years ago, is Tesla to blame for these increased accidents? Or is it that there are a bunch of Teslas on the road now, and it only makes sense that some would be involved in accidents.

But, I don't that because the driver was driving a SUV, that was was generally to blame for the accident or a death related to the accident.

Now, certain type of accidents, such as roll-over types, I think there is a correlation with SUV. Maybe there might be a correlation of a survival rate of a pedestrian-related accident and SUVs being involved. But, a solution to ban SUVs in a city is not just silly, it would be just a bandaid.

It would make sense to address the root cause of the deaths, which would be closer to distracted driving and distracted pedestrians, than that people drive a SUVs.
Click to expand...
The point is that if you chose a more pedestrian-friendly car, you would do less damage when you have an accident.
 
cube said:
The point is that if you chose a more pedestrian-friendly car, you would do less damage when you have an accident.
Click to expand...
You are probably right, but I think choosing a vehicle that fits one's wants and needs, and addressing the root cause of pedestrian-accidents, would be ideal solution than banning SUVs from cities.

There is all sorts of things that could be done to make one's life safer, but just because it could be done, doesn't mean it should.
 
vertical smile said:
You are probably right, but I think choosing a vehicle that fits one's wants and needs, and addressing the root cause of pedestrian-accidents, would be ideal solution than banning SUVs from cities.

There is all sorts of things that could be done to make one's life safer, but just because it could be done, doesn't mean it should.
Click to expand...
Some cities have started banning diesels. The same could happen to SUVs.

It seems London will not be exempting hybrid cars from congestion charge anymore, so that means there will be basically no SUVs driving there for free, as Uber and minicabs would also be charged.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back