The Ethics of Self-Driving Cars

[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.