You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

1
22

[–] buncha_cunts 1 points 22 points (+23|-1) ago  (edited ago)

It's my opinion that if pedestrians are breaking the law, the car's main priority has to be maintaining its path and ensuring the safety of its passenger(s). If it's possible to swerve to avoid the pedestrian without causing another accident, it should. Otherwise, the pedestrian is the low man on the totem pole.

There are so many much more complicated versions of this though, that MIT created the "Moral Machine" (http://moralmachine.mit.edu/) to learn what people would do in certain situations. The thing is, not even humans can make perfect decisions on stuff like this.

1
1

[–] Wargasm 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago 

How about the car doesn't attempt to make the most moral decisions and just drives on the road? I can live with running over an elderly jawalker or five thugs, so long as I get to live.

0
0

[–] buncha_cunts 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Yeah, and I guess that's how most humans would drive. But we still need driverless cars to be some degree better than humans to make sense.

0
0

[–] Fuzzycrumpkin 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Insurance company says "do not swerve". Your supposed to break.