What does everyone think ? Are the cars unethical?

[asid61]

The article argues against itself. It makes the point that having a smart car would be unfair (especially the helmet thing; what's the correct answer there?) and says at the same time that having a random car would be undesirable. Obviously minimizing human fatalities is the priority, so what is it trying to say? That cars should make decisions based on... what? Basically it offers no solution to any problem and only seeks to stir people up.
That kind of "no solution" tone pisses me off more than pretty much anything else, regardless of situation.

On another note, for once the comments (on the article) are good comments.

[artdutra04]

People already make these types of decisions while driving.

Let's say you're driving at the speed limit through a residential neighborhood, and a child suddenly runs in front of your car to chase a ball. I'm sure most people would swerve to avoid the child even if it meant hitting another car or other inanimate object, because chances are at reasonable speeds no one in another car would be seriously injured but hitting a child would definitely result in serious injuries.

[JohnFogarty]

Man I'd hate to be the guy who has to write an insurance policy clause for an autonomous vehicle collision. Who would be at fault...the car company...the programmer...the AI...

So many things to consider.

[NotInControl]

Originally Posted by JohnFogarty

Man I'd hate to be the guy who has to write an insurance policy clause for an autonomous vehicle collision. Who would be at fault...the car company...the programmer...the AI...

So many things to consider.

Thats if you keep assuming people own their own cars. There are many different models for the autonomous car network.

Look at Dubai, they currently employ an autonomous vehicle network where each car operates like a taxi, you go to a location, enter your destination, and a car picks you up and takes you there.

There are many models that prove people do not need to own their own cars if the primary reason is transportation to and from places. Today 80% of a normal vehicles life is parked and the owner travels within a 50 mile radius of their home, to go to school, work, errands etc. Imagine how many resources we can save if we made less total vehicles, and made them available to more people, increasing their use time. Similar to an autonomous taxi service, that will pick you up and take you where you want to go.

In cases like this, the service provider is responsible, similar to an airline company when the airline crashes.

The autonomous car, affects every aspect of driving as we understand it today. It makes no sense to try to solve one off questions, while still thinking unilaterally about the topic.

Driving needs major reform. There are many other models which yield drastically different results, but have benefits and shortcomings as well.

Anytime someone talks about insurance with regards to an autonomous car the converstation will get derailed. Autonomous cars are being made to reduce accidenets and the loss of life and property damage among other things. These are all reasons why insurance companies exist. If those things don't happen or the likelyhood of that event occuring is reduced significantly, then consumer insurance companies can sease to exist altogether and commercial insurance companies take over.

The way napster removed the need for record stores, autonomous cars can be the end of insurance for consumers... one additional benefit to atonomous cars, in addition to reduced traffic, smarter road construction, etc.

Regards,
Kevin

[JohnFogarty]

Originally Posted by NotInControl

Thats if you keep assuming people own their own cars. There are many different models for the autonomous car network.

Look at Dubai, they currently employ an autonomous vehicle network where each car operates like a taxi, you go to a location, enter your destination, and a car picks you up and takes you there.

There are many models that prove people do not need to own their own cars if the primary reason is transportation to and from places. Today 80% of a normal vehicles life is parked and the owner travels within a 50 mile radius of their home, to go to school, work, errands etc. Imagine how many resources we can save if we made less total vehicles, and made them available to more people, increasing their use time. Similar to an autonomous taxi service, that will pick you up and take you where you want to go.

In cases like this, the service provider is responsible, similar to an airline company when the airline crashes.

The autonomous car, affects every aspect of driving as we understand it today. It makes no sense to try to solve one off questions, while still thinking unilaterally about the topic.

Driving needs major reform. There are many other models which yield drastically different results, but have benefits and shortcomings as well.

Anytime someone talks about insurance with regards to an autonomous car the converstation will get derailed. Autonomous cars are being made to reduce accidenets and the loss of life and property damage among other things. These are all reasons why insurance companies exist. If those things don't happen or the likelyhood of that event occuring is reduced significantly, then consumer insurance companies can sease to exist altogether and commercial insurance companies take over.

The way napster removed the need for record stores, autonomous cars can be the end of insurance for consumers... one additional benefit to atonomous cars, in addition to reduced traffic, smarter road construction, etc.

Regards,
Kevin

How does my statement reflect anything to do with personal ownership of the autonomous vehicle?

[Invictus3593]

Originally Posted by JohnFogarty

Man I'd hate to be the guy who has to write an insurance policy clause for an autonomous vehicle collision. Who would be at fault...the car company...the programmer...the AI...

So many things to consider.

Assuming that attorneys are dealing with the insurance claim and not the actual policy clause itself, I would assume that the car manufacturer would be blamed in court. They have the biggest pockets

[NotInControl]

Originally Posted by JohnFogarty

How does my statement reflect anything to do with personal ownership of the autonomous vehicle?

I apologize if I mis-interpreted your post. I assumed this was the case because it was apparent you were implying determining the best possible insurance policy would be a harder than obvious task with many factors to consider.

The insurance aspect of an autonomous car depends on the model employed, and under most models they really don't differ much then say how a taxi company insures all of its cars or how an airline is insured. There are some models that do.

The only reason I could deduce you were implying this was a hard task was the possible assumption that people still owned the vehicles. If this is not the case, I apologize. If people do not own the vehicles, then the model gets really simple, takes form of similar insurance models already instantiated today by other industries and it is not a hard task at all. If people do own the vehicles, then there're many more models which suggest how to handle this, and a lot more scenarios.

The point I was trying to make is as people think of questions with regards to this technology, it is impossible to change one variable assuming everything else they currently understand about our driving model today stays the same.

When autonomous cars are employed, every aspect of our driving model today will need to be modified as well.

Regards,
Kevin

[DonRotolo]

Originally Posted by rich2202

In my driver's ed class, they said "always leave yourself an out". That said, something can conspire to remove that out (going through a construction zone where the shoulder is gone).

In addition to minimize damage to me, or to everyone. there is also: Let the vehicle that caused the problem bear the cost. For instance, if a tire blows out, and one of your choices is to hit that car, then hit that car.

Ah, but in a construction zone, your "out" would include slowing down (usually required anyway) and allowing a greater following distance. You always need an "out", and with experience you get to recognize some that are subtler than most.

As for "then hit that car" - you surely mean "your best choice", not "one of your choices". (Every day, one of my choices is to hit that car in front of me. But my better choice is to brake gently beforehand instead...)


Anyway, back to autonomous cars: Although arguable, insurance would just make the 'operator' of the car responsible (even if they weren't touching the controls). Putting responsibility on the manufacturer will guarantee we'll never see an autonomous car. That's like putting the responsibility for a cut hand on the knife manufacturer...

[Oblarg]

Originally Posted by DonRotolo

Anyway, back to autonomous cars: Although arguable, insurance would just make the 'operator' of the car responsible (even if they weren't touching the controls). Putting responsibility on the manufacturer will guarantee we'll never see an autonomous car. That's like putting the responsibility for a cut hand on the knife manufacturer...

This is one of the very many reasons that our current legal system is not ready for mass automation of tasks previously handled by humans. The only reasonable way to handle the risk of a mass-automated transportation system is to distribute the cost to everyone using the system. But this would be dreaded "big government," and is unfeasible until we see major social changes.

The change will come, though. Current beliefs about ownership, responsibility, and the proper role of government and whatnot will pretty clearly fall apart once most menial tasks are mechanized.

[Libraryfanatic]

The impact on insurance may depend on how autonomous cars are introduced. I heard a little while ago that even the corporations developing autonomous cars aren't planning on actually selling them anytime soon precisely because of fears about liability. So, if the cars are just sort of phased in without big changes, possibly via legislation, the designer/maker of the car would probably be responsible for any accidents that result.

However, autonomous cars shouldn't make "mistakes." So, if there is such an inescapable situation, someone (i.e. a person) probably did something dumb or you're in one of those "act of god" situations. In the first case, the person responsible would be liable, just like in a regular crash. In the case of something natural, like a rockfall or tree drop, why not hit the tree? I guess I'm not seeing a situation occurring where you have to hit another car and nobody did something wrong. For example, if it's raining, the autonomous cars ought to be able to slow down the appropriate amount to maintain control--robots don't get impatient.

[rich2202]

They are being phased in as a safety measure. There are some cars already on the market that have automatic braking.

Once people are convinced that automatic systems can keep you from getting into an accident, then it does not take as much convincing to let them do the driving. After all, if they are bad drivers, at least they won't get into an accident.

[wesbass23]

Well that was an incredibly misleading title.

[DJB11]

If this was implemented, I don't believe it would be programmed to ram "said car" over other "said car". I would think it would be programmed to stop dead in it's tracks and deploy airbags... But I wouldn't know, I don't exactly make cars

[Daniel Dupius]

Thank you Kevin for the accurate post on this subject. I work for an automotive supplier that is working on this technology. We currently make products like ABS, TCS (traction control), ESC (electronic stability control), ACC (adaptive cruise control) etc. etc. To the best of my knowledge the cars are/ or will be programed to avoid a collision. If the collision is inevitable the automobile will do things like roll up windows, tighten the seatbelt etc.