The Ethics of Self-Driving Cars

[jesmu84]

<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/ixIoDYVfKA0" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/ixIoDYVfKA0</a>

[martyconlonontherun]

So basically the Trolley Problem that has been around for a 100 years?

Give me calculated, minimized loss over random, mass catastrophe any day.

Its reminds me of surge pricing for Uber. They say its ethically wrong cause those who can't/don't want to pay surge pricing lose service, but in reality even those who refuse to pay surge pricing benefit since more cars are attracted to the area and non-surge pricing ubers and cabs become available quicker.

Of course there will be some regulation needed, but I hate when improvement for everyone is slowed down because people want to ensure its completely fair. Driverless cars will make the road safer for everyone, even those that are "unfairly" targeted to minimize loss.

[Benny B]

Meh... As with everything else in life, the smart people will avoid harm by figuring out and gaming the algorithm to their advantage, and the meatheads will meet their demise.  Darwin 101.

[PBRme]

When I look around the US/world lately I think Darwin has been on an extended vacation

[#UnleashSean]

The problem given won't even happen. The car would slow down sensing danger due to being boxed in.

[Benny B]

The problem given won't even happen. The car would slow down sensing danger due to being boxed in.

Agreed... The car would stop immediately, just like most people would do in that situation.

[StillAWarrior]

Agreed... The car would stop immediately, just like most people would do in that situation.

The car will only do that if that's what it's been programmed to do. Which is a choice. The car could be programmed to swerve to avoid a collision.

The premise in the video is that the car cannot stop in time to avoid the collision. If you're going to simply change the premise by saying, "that won't happen because the car will stop in time," you might as well say, "that won't happen, the car would just drive a different route that day."

The ethical dilemma is, IF the car cannot stop in time, will it be programmed to swerve, as many drivers would do in that circumstance. It's an interesting question. The fact patterns in ethical dilemmas don't always have to be 100% realistic to illustrate the dilemma.

[Benny B]

The car will only do that if that's what it's been programmed to do. Which is a choice. The car could be programmed to swerve to avoid a collision.

The premise in the video is that the car cannot stop in time to avoid the collision. If you're going to simply change the premise by saying, "that won't happen because the car will stop in time," you might as well say, "that won't happen, the car would just drive a different route that day."

The ethical dilemma is, IF the car cannot stop in time, will it be programmed to swerve, as many drivers would do in that circumstance. It's an interesting question. The fact patterns in ethical dilemmas don't always have to be 100% realistic to illustrate the dilemma.

A self-driving car will never be programmed to swerve into another occupied vehicle under any circumstances, i.e. there will be no evasive action if it means potential harm to others, period.  This is nothing more than a manufactured controversy.

[brewcity77]

The car will only do that if that's what it's been programmed to do. Which is a choice. The car could be programmed to swerve to avoid a collision.

The premise in the video is that the car cannot stop in time to avoid the collision. If you're going to simply change the premise by saying, "that won't happen because the car will stop in time," you might as well say, "that won't happen, the car would just drive a different route that day."

The ethical dilemma is, IF the car cannot stop in time, will it be programmed to swerve, as many drivers would do in that circumstance. It's an interesting question. The fact patterns in ethical dilemmas don't always have to be 100% realistic to illustrate the dilemma.

If the car cannot stop in time, it was programmed incorrectly. The situation we are given puts the car in a situation where it is tailgating. I've heard both the 2 second and 3 second rules for following distance to be able to come to a complete stop. My guess is a self-driving car would probably follow at double the safe distance. I can't see this situation happening because the car was boxed in because it would slow down before that situation presented itself. It is far more likely this car would be struck from behind by a non-self-driving tailgating driver in this situation than the car would strike any object directly in front of it.

Now if it's a case of the car being cut off by another driver, or someone pulling in front of the self-driving car and coming to a sudden stop, that's a different discussion, but also one that is likely caused by the other driver and not the self-driving car.

[StillAWarrior]

A self-driving car will never be programmed to swerve into another occupied vehicle under any circumstances, i.e. there will be no evasive action if it means potential harm to others, period.  This is nothing more than a manufactured controversy.

Sounds like a choice.  Ethical dilemma solved.  I think you're taking it a little too seriously.  I didn't realize there was some sort of controversy that we all were addressing.

[ChicosBailBonds]

A self-driving car will never be programmed to swerve into another occupied vehicle under any circumstances, i.e. there will be no evasive action if it means potential harm to others, period.  This is nothing more than a manufactured controversy.

Just imagine the liability parts to this whole thing.  Ahh, the lawyers must be having a field day trying to figure this out, and what the risk exposure is on a $$$ level.  You can bet that is happening, as the manufacturers of these cars are the ones on the hook. 

[Benny B]

Just imagine the liability parts to this whole thing.  Ahh, the lawyers must be having a field day trying to figure this out, and what the risk exposure is on a $$$ level.  You can bet that is happening, as the manufacturers of these cars are the ones on the hook.

Meh.  People much smarter than all of us are figuring out the risk exposure.  Therefore, it's not the lawyers who are having a field day.

[GooooMarquette]

Here's an ethical question relating to self-driving cars.

If you were the programmer and were trying to anticipate a situation where the only options were plowing into a crowd of people wearing Notre Dame shirts or plowing into a crowd of people wearing Bucky shirts, which direction to you tell the car to go?

[Note:  There is a right answer.]

[Tugg Speedman]

Here's an ethical question relating to self-driving cars.

If you were the programmer and were trying to anticipate a situation where the only options were plowing into a crowd of people wearing Notre Dame shirts or plowing into a crowd of people wearing Bucky shirts, which direction to you tell the car to go?

[Note:  There is a right answer.]

Both!

[GooooMarquette]

Both!

Good answer...but assume it has to be one or the other.

[#UnleashSean]

Here's an ethical question relating to self-driving cars.

If you were the programmer and were trying to anticipate a situation where the only options were plowing into a crowd of people wearing Notre Dame shirts or plowing into a crowd of people wearing Bucky shirts, which direction to you tell the car to go?

[Note:  There is a right answer.]

Plow into the Notre Dame fans first, then afterwards plow into the way more overweight bucky nation.

[GooooMarquette]

Plow into the Notre Dame fans first, then afterwards plow into the way more overweight bucky nation.

lol

My answer - assuming it had to be one or the other - whichever group is larger!

[GOO]

Another article worth a read.  See link at the bottom.  Many here dismiss the ethical issues as not real, but they are completely real. A real driver will plow into pedestrians in front of them rather than turn off the side of a mountain or crash into a wall.  Should the driver less car to the same or should it do everything possible to avoid killing people outside the car including sacrificing the driver of the car.  The vehicle will know how many people are in the car, does the number of occupants matter, etc.   

Article Summary: Basically, because self driving cars follow the law (speed limits, etc), they are involved in twice as many accidents.  Not the fault of the self driving cars, just that other drivers hit them from behind.

So, the ethical issue in the article is should these cars violate the law to fit in to how humans actually drive.  I say no, let's make our roads safer and safer.  33K deaths a year in the USA for driving is crazy.  Yet we'll spend trillions fighting domestic terror over the next decade where very, very few lives will be lost in comparison, even if we don't spend the money.  Completely illogical, of course. But no one ever accused the USA of making logical political decisions (and it doesn't matter which side of the debates your on, they both make consistently illogical choices, unless of course the only logic of politicians is what is good for getting me reelected and richer, which seems to be the logic of Washington on both sides of the aisle). 

Countries like Norway and Sweden actually have stared taking driver safety and road safety seriously and have really reduced driving deaths.  I wish we'd throw a few bucks towards this problem.  But since as a society we don't seem to care much, illogically, the solution will have to be car tech.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-18/humans-are-slamming-into-driverless-cars-and-exposing-a-key-flaw

[martyconlonontherun]

Another article worth a read.  See link at the bottom.  Many here dismiss the ethical issues as not real, but they are completely real. A real driver will plow into pedestrians in front of them rather than turn off the side of a mountain or crash into a wall.  Should the driver less car to the same or should it do everything possible to avoid killing people outside the car including sacrificing the driver of the car.  The vehicle will know how many people are in the car, does the number of occupants matter, etc.   

I'm dismissing the ethical issues cause the negative consequences in that is sooooooo small compared to the additional benefits of driverless cars. I admit these issues need to be decided but as a whole once the decisions are made, they will save more lives. And honestly, if i am taking the risk of being in a car, I am taking the risks that it is still dangerous and you can die. "one death is a tragedy one million is a statistic" Yeah, it sucks that your car basically self-sacrificed you for others but I just don't understand the right of the individual known in a car is more important than unknown pedestrians on the street.

Articles like these paralyze progress because people only see the one situation you posted and think "The driverless car is going to kill me." This totally disregards the 99.999999999% of the time the car will protect and make the right decision for you. I would rather put my life on the calculation of a computer than me trying to make a last second my move would more likely kill me and others. I'ld probably swerve into on-coming traffic and kill me and the oncoming driver.

[GooooMarquette]

I'm dismissing the ethical issues cause the negative consequences in that is sooooooo small compared to the additional benefits of driverless cars. I admit these issues need to be decided but as a whole once the decisions are made, they will save more lives. And honestly, if i am taking the risk of being in a car, I am taking the risks that it is still dangerous and you can die. "one death is a tragedy one million is a statistic" Yeah, it sucks that your car basically self-sacrificed you for others but I just don't understand the right of the individual known in a car is more important than unknown pedestrians on the street.

Articles like these paralyze progress because people only see the one situation you posted and think "The driverless car is going to kill me." This totally disregards the 99.999999999% of the time the car will protect and make the right decision for you. I would rather put my life on the calculation of a computer than me trying to make a last second my move would more likely kill me and others. I'ld probably swerve into on-coming traffic and kill me and the oncoming driver.

We should probably just have a computer program decide whether you get to eat that ice cream, or have to opt for carrot sticks instead.  Cuz, you know, it will save a lot of lives.

Or maybe there is something to this idea that people should get to choose based on more than just raw statistics....

[martyconlonontherun]

We should probably just have a computer program decide whether you get to eat that ice cream, or have to opt for carrot sticks instead.  Cuz, you know, it will save a lot of lives.

Or maybe there is something to this idea that people should get to choose based on more than just raw statistics....

I think you missed my point. The ethical issue is so small in the grand scheme of things. If you want more personal choice, fine. Make it so the driver predetermines what they want to do in a given circumstance.They can select from things like "Safety of passengers is number 1 priority when my children are in the car" or "sacrifice myself if I'm alone and it saves multiple lives." I just think it is dumb people take this ethical question like this and delay progress. The chances that you are in this ethical situation is so small it pales in comparison to all the other advantages. The cars are safer in those circumstances cause a human driver probably will make the wrong decision that kills them and others, anyways. Let's get it on them on the road and regulate ethical issues as they come up.

Would you not ride in a driverless because it could kill you without giving you the choice? I would much rather the car sacrifice me than my idiot friend on the phone trying to drive. 

[MUsoxfan]

I think you missed my point. The ethical issue is so small in the grand scheme of things. If you want more personal choice, fine. Make it so the driver predetermines what they want to do in a given circumstance.They can select from things like "Safety of passengers is number 1 priority when my children are in the car" or "sacrifice myself if I'm alone and it saves multiple lives." I just think it is dumb people take this ethical question like this and delay progress. The chances that you are in this ethical situation is so small it pales in comparison to all the other advantages. The cars are safer in those circumstances cause a human driver probably will make the wrong decision that kills them and others, anyways. Let's get it on them on the road and regulate ethical issues as they come up.

Would you not ride in a driverless because it could kill you without giving you the choice? I would much rather the car sacrifice me than my idiot friend on the phone trying to drive.

All it takes is one catastrophic accident caused by a computer driven car to bring down the entire driverless car industry.

If I kill a van full of children, it's me being irresponsible and liable. If a driverless car kills that van full of children, it's the entire driverless company that's liable

A nation of driverless cars is nothing but a fantasy. Unless there is tort reform. But I promise you that lawyers are already salivating over the prospect

[Tugg Speedman]

All it takes is one catastrophic accident caused by a computer driven car to bring down the entire driverless car industry.

If I kill a van full of children, it's me being irresponsible and liable. If a driverless car kills that van full of children, it's the entire driverless company that's liable

A nation of driverless cars is nothing but a fantasy. Unless there is tort reform. But I promise you that lawyers are already salivating over the prospect

See the other thread on driverless cars.  Driverless cars are getting in accidents at a higher rate than expected.  Why?  Because driverless cars follow the rules while humans don't.  Every accident is the fault of the human driver.

If anything it will be the opposite, the advancement of driverless cars will be paid by humans that hit them and are sued by the driverless industry.  You hit a driverless car, you're at fault, driverless car follow the rules, their are programmed to do that, they cannot do anything else.

So if a driverless car kills a van full of children, no need to investigate, the van driver is at fault.

[Benny B]

See the other thread on driverless cars.  Driverless cars are getting in accidents at a higher rate than expected.  Why?  Because driverless cars follow the rules while humans don't.  Every accident is the fault of the human driver.

If anything it will be the opposite, the advancement of driverless cars will be paid by humans that hit them and are sued by the driverless industry.  You hit a driverless car, you're at fault, driverless car follow the rules, their are programmed to do that, they cannot do anything else.

So if a driverless car kills a van full of children, no need to investigate, the van driver is at fault.

That's pretty much about it.  And it's because of the morons who can't follow the rules why driverless technology will advance faster than anyone can imagine.

[martyconlonontherun]

All it takes is one catastrophic accident caused by a computer driven car to bring down the entire driverless car industry.

If I kill a van full of children, it's me being irresponsible and liable. If a driverless car kills that van full of children, it's the entire driverless company that's liable

A nation of driverless cars is nothing but a fantasy. Unless there is tort reform. But I promise you that lawyers are already salivating over the prospect

That's a total different argument of why driverless cars are held back versus should they be held back. I hope it gets to the point where it becomes socially irresponsible to drive a car like it would be to start smoking in a bar or drunk driving. Yea, you are taking away personal freedom but you were putting other people in danger with your actions. I would rather drive than be a passenger and I have logged 17K in the past 5.5 months based on my oil change history I checked this past week.

Well today I was driving in the dark and rain through a construction area. There was no way to tell where the lanes were since the light reflected off the slick road. Add in that it was a rerouted construction area on the highway and I was just guessing where my lane was. I would've paid good money to let the car/computer take over in those conditions cause I have no doubts it would have done a better job. Now ten years from now, if some idiot had autodrive turned off and hit me cause he didn't see the lanes, I would hope he would get the book thrown at him. Yeah, there is some kind of enjoyment in driving but there are 35K deaths on US roads every year and cost $300M. If you want to drive and put other lives and property in danger when preventive tools are in place, you should have to pay a premium on insurance and take full responsibility for your actions.   

[MUsoxfan]

You don't understand what I'm saying. All it takes is ONE catastrophic accident where the computer fails to pick up the poorly marked lane in the construction zone or fails to adjust to black ice. ONE. And the entire industry will be in the tank

Not to mention all the political implications

[ChicosBailBonds]

California is requiring a steering wheel, accelerator and brakes on these cars and a person MUST be behind the wheel and able to override the car by using the controls if need be.

[jesmu84]

California is requiring a steering wheel, accelerator and brakes on these cars and a person MUST be behind the wheel and able to override the car by using the controls if need be.

That could prove to be a VERY interesting decision.

Either they will establish the standard requirements on self-driven cars. Or they will be left behind.

[martyconlonontherun]

You don't understand what I'm saying. All it takes is ONE catastrophic accident where the computer fails to pick up the poorly marked lane in the construction zone or fails to adjust to black ice. ONE. And the entire industry will be in the tank

Not to mention all the political implications

I don't think it would be that drastic, but I agree one accident would cause a major setback. The political world is just messed up that a one mechanical failure like that will delay progress that prevents 10x as many accidents by human error in those situations. (Yeah, I'm throwing out fake numbers but I don't think there is any doubt that car could drive safer in ten years through construction than the average human who is slightly distracted by phones, radios, etc.)

I understood what you said. But back to my original point that you quoted me on. I was saying I think the ethical issues are overplayed. Goo and GOOOOMarquette seemed to be implying these ethical issues and reforms are extremely important and shouldn't be taken lightly. I don't think that is true. The impact of those ethical issues will be so small compared to the benefits of overall safety and convenience when looking at the whole picture and lives saved by driverless cars. No DUIs, no falling asleep at the wheel, no texting and driving, no medical emergencies (Ie heart attack seizures) No lost of control accidents, etc.......but hold up....there's a 1 in a 100 million chance my car will kill me by going over a cliff instead of oncoming traffic that will severely injure me and kill 3 others. Really that's an ethical issue where we should hold up innovation of safety in an industry that kills 30K people a year? I understand the legal implications and reality of the world but I was responding to the ethics side of the debate and whether or not it is that big of deal.

[martyconlonontherun]

California is requiring a steering wheel, accelerator and brakes on these cars and a person MUST be behind the wheel and able to override the car by using the controls if need be.

Anyone want to bet there will be more accidents from people overreacting and taking the wheel in an emergence than those accidents actually cause by the car/prevented by the person taking the wheel?

Planet Money did a podcast awhile ago that talked about an airline crashing because the pilot didn't trust the system and ended up crashing the plane.

[ChicosBailBonds]

That could prove to be a VERY interesting decision.

Either they will establish the standard requirements on self-driven cars. Or they will be left behind.

California usually sets the trends for better and worse...


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3363067/California-Self-driving-cars-driver-wheel.html


Person still has to be certified with a license as well

http://www.cnet.com/news/california-dmv-self-driving-car-regulations/

[ChicosBailBonds]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-22/driverless-cars-give-lawyers-bottomless-list-of-defendants

[GOO]

I don't think it would be that drastic, but I agree one accident would cause a major setback. The political world is just messed up that a one mechanical failure like that will delay progress that prevents 10x as many accidents by human error in those situations. (Yeah, I'm throwing out fake numbers but I don't think there is any doubt that car could drive safer in ten years through construction than the average human who is slightly distracted by phones, radios, etc.)

I understood what you said. But back to my original point that you quoted me on. I was saying I think the ethical issues are overplayed. Goo and GOOOOMarquette seemed to be implying these ethical issues and reforms are extremely important and shouldn't be taken lightly. I don't think that is true. The impact of those ethical issues will be so small compared to the benefits of overall safety and convenience when looking at the whole picture and lives saved by driverless cars. No DUIs, no falling asleep at the wheel, no texting and driving, no medical emergencies (Ie heart attack seizures) No lost of control accidents, etc.......but hold up....there's a 1 in a 100 million chance my car will kill me by going over a cliff instead of oncoming traffic that will severely injure me and kill 3 others. Really that's an ethical issue where we should hold up innovation of safety in an industry that kills 30K people a year? I understand the legal implications and reality of the world but I was responding to the ethics side of the debate and whether or not it is that big of deal.

You dismiss the ethical issues.  I don't. 

I am 100% for self driving, help driving whatever we can do with technology to make our roads safer!  ASAP.  Driving is the most dangerous thing most of us will ever due and people are bad at it.

However, you can't simply dismiss the ethical issues.  Should the ethical issues slow progress down.  No! But these things need to be addressed. Should people get hung up on ethical issues in the total scheme, with 33K people dying in the USA on the roads now with tech that can drastically cut that down.  NO!, of course not and I didn't mean to imply that (which I don't think I did).  But ethical issues have to be addressed and those of us that are in favor of this tech can't ignore them  and hide our heads in the sand.  If these ethical issues are not addressed up front, quickly and now, they could be the type of accident that sets this tech way back!   

It happens to also be very interesting to think about and discuss. 

[Benny B]

You don't understand what I'm saying. All it takes is ONE catastrophic accident where the computer fails to pick up the poorly marked lane in the construction zone or fails to adjust to black ice. ONE. And the entire industry will be in the tank

Not to mention all the political implications

I don't think that something like this is going to take the entire self-car industry down any more than it would take the entire construction industry (who failed to properly mark the lanes) down.

And self-driving cars can adjust to black ice... just because a human can't doesn't mean a computer can't.  Heck, my car already reacts to and adjusts power to the wheels on black ice before I even know it's there.

[Tugg Speedman]

You dismiss the ethical issues.  I don't. 

I am 100% for self driving, help driving whatever we can do with technology to make our roads safer!  ASAP.  Driving is the most dangerous thing most of us will ever due and people are bad at it.

However, you can't simply dismiss the ethical issues.  Should the ethical issues slow progress down.  No! But these things need to be addressed. Should people get hung up on ethical issues in the total scheme, with 33K people dying in the USA on the roads now with tech that can drastically cut that down.  NO!, of course not and I didn't mean to imply that (which I don't think I did).  But ethical issues have to be addressed and those of us that are in favor of this tech can't ignore them  and hide our heads in the sand.  If these ethical issues are not addressed up front, quickly and now, they could be the type of accident that sets this tech way back!   

It happens to also be very interesting to think about and discuss.

A year ago or so  The head of Google's driverless car project got in a little hot water for speaking "the truth" ...  He was speaking at a conference that he was getting all these "what if" scenarios like this thread and he barked out something like " look our cars don't have to be perfect, humans kill 33,000 people a year, we just have to be better than that."

Fact is nothing is going to bring down the driverless car industry. Because those promoting it believe that humans behind the wheel are efficient killing machines and they have to be stopped.  And no one in the  driverless car industry is promising perfection,  they are promising to make it much better ... that's all.

[Skatastrophy]

If roller coaster companies and amusement parks can figure out how to foot the bill for accidental deaths, then it shouldn't be that hard for auto manufacturers to figure it out.

With the exception of grandfathered-in "manual" cars, it should become a requirement to ride in self-driving cars in the next decade. Then the choice becomes just like a roller coaster: Hop in and accept the risk, or don't ride.

[tower912]

http://www.motortrend.com/news/canadian-official-autonomous-cars-could-prompt-behind-the-wheel-sex/

An angle I had not thought of.    Of course, after 24 years of marriage, it is unlikely that I will be one of the 'lucky' ones.     And there had better be tinted windows.     

[martyconlonontherun]

http://www.motortrend.com/news/canadian-official-autonomous-cars-could-prompt-behind-the-wheel-sex/

An angle I had not thought of.    Of course, after 24 years of marriage, it is unlikely that I will be one of the 'lucky' ones.     And there had better be tinted windows.   

To me, that is one of the most appealing angles (the ability to change the riding experience not the sex since i fall in the marriage category). Instead of having one driver and one person looking on the phone, I think the cars will be oriented to be mini-rooms where people can watch movies, interact, sleep etc. It won't be like trying to work in an airplane or passenger seat as we know it. I bet there will be cars with all seats point to a central spot with adjustable tables in the center. It will eventually change the who riding to lunch experience with more social seating and eye-contact.

[Benny B]

http://www.motortrend.com/news/canadian-official-autonomous-cars-could-prompt-behind-the-wheel-sex/

An angle I had not thought of.    Of course, after 24 years of marriage, it is unlikely that I will be one of the 'lucky' ones.     And there had better be tinted windows.   

Perhaps you should look at a self-driving car as being exactly the spark your marriage needs after 24 years.

[Tugg Speedman]

To me, that is one of the most appealing angles (the ability to change the riding experience not the sex since i fall in the marriage category). Instead of having one driver and one person looking on the phone, I think the cars will be oriented to be mini-rooms where people can watch movies, interact, sleep etc. It won't be like trying to work in an airplane or passenger seat as we know it. I bet there will be cars with all seats point to a central spot with adjustable tables in the center. It will eventually change the who riding to lunch experience with more social seating and eye-contact.

The driverless car will change things in ways we cannot imagine.

All the cars will be connected,  Every car will know what ever other car intends on doing.  So traffic will fly.  Also, their will be a ban on parking on most streets (the car can take itself to a designated parking lot, and return when call).  Parking is estimate to be responsible for half large urban traffic congestion.

What I'm trying to say is you will not spend much time in the car.  Or, imagine it 5PM on a Friday and you're in Chicago's Loop.  You will complain that it will take 20 minutes to get to O'Hare instead of the customary 10 to 12 minutes.

Or MU to Mequon at rush-our in the rain, 15 minutes, at most.

Longer trips?  No more speed limits.  relaxing on I-94 between Chicago and Milwaukee at a smooth 150 to 170 MPH.  24 inch TV up watching a sitcom, or maybe a quick nap for the 30 minute ride.

Point is our culture will change when the driverless car becomes reality.

[mr.MUskie]

If an electric car hits a person can it be charged with battery?

[#UnleashSean]

California is requiring a steering wheel, accelerator and brakes on these cars and a person MUST be behind the wheel and able to override the car by using the controls if need be.

This whole table and chairs turned backwards is in 15-20 years. Of course at the start we will be requiring a driver all the time. Then humans will be slowly phased out until they are no longer allowed to drive.

[#UnleashSean]

If an electric car hits a person can it be charged with battery?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpaOy8b8X6A

[Tugg Speedman]

This whole table and chairs turned backwards is in 15-20 years. Of course at the start we will be requiring a driver all the time. Then humans will be slowly phased out until they are no longer allowed to drive.

See broadband adoption.  In the mid-1990s the initial expectations was it would take a decade or two.  But demand was so great it forced adoption rates much faster.

So, once the first cars are on the road, and no one dies, will their be a tidal wave of demand for the product?  Initially they will be driverless Ubers.  Will consumers demand driverless cars?

Not sure if this will be the case but I would not be surprised if the demand was high.

[#UnleashSean]

See broadband adoption.  In the mid-1990s the initial expectations was it would take a decade or two.  But demand was so great it forced adoption rates much faster.

So, once the first cars are on the road, and no one dies, will their be a tidal wave of demand for the product?  Initially they will be driverless Ubers.  Will consumers demand driverless cars?

Not sure if this will be the case but I would not be surprised if the demand was high.

I agree with you. However the laws surrounding them is what I am talking about.