facebook posts/tweets from people from your hometown

[star seed 7]

There's absolutely no reason for driverless cars to ever collide. That's the whole point

[Mrs. Gooch]

There's absolutely no reason for driverless cars to ever collide. That's the whole point

There's going to be some point in time where some people have driverless cars and some people have driver-driven cars.

[star seed 7]

So that wouldn't be driverless cars colliding then

[Poster formerly known as jthutch]

Good Meade KS one imo

Had friends also post this one.

[Mrs. Gooch]

So that wouldn't be driverless cars colliding then

No but your driverless car would still have to make some life-or-death decisions when it is about to collide with a driver-driven car....

[star seed 7]

In that case a driverless car should protect itself, since the accident is going to 100% be the fault of the normal driver

[catastrophe]

I could write a lot of different software over my lifetime, but I choose to never write or participate in development of software that decides who lives and who dies. I'm uncomfortable with it... even if it were possible to write bug-free code.

As driverless cars become a part of our future, someone will have to write software to make life and death decisions. Unfortunately with enough driven miles, circumstance will force an automated car to decide whether to kill its passengers or to kill other people. And someone will have to write "moral" code into the software that runs the car to make that decision.

On the whole, driverless cars will prevent a substantial portion of accidents and deaths from ever occurring, but chance will still force that worst of decisions. I'm all for saving lives and others writing this software. I'm just unwilling to take responsibility for if and when this code makes a wrong decision.

On the whole I tend to think the "I agree it's good and am all for other people doing it but can't do it myself for moral reasons" are some of the worst people on Earth.

[catastrophe]

So that wouldn't be driverless cars colliding then

No but your driverless car would still have to make some life-or-death decisions when it is about to collide with a driver-driven car....

I mean, shouldn't the car be programmed to always prioritize protecting its own passengers? It doesn't make much sense to program it to run itself into a tree or off a cliff even if a collision with another car seems imminent.

[Emo EMAW]

Two driverless cars could absolutely collide if for example a deer/cow/moose/velociraptor were to suddenly appear in the roadway. 

[star seed 7]

Two driverless cars could absolutely collide if for example a deer/cow/moose/velociraptor were to suddenly appear in the roadway.

Naw

[Mrs. Gooch]

So that wouldn't be driverless cars colliding then

No but your driverless car would still have to make some life-or-death decisions when it is about to collide with a driver-driven car....

I mean, shouldn't the car be programmed to always prioritize protecting its own passengers? It doesn't make much sense to program it to run itself into a tree or off a cliff even if a collision with another car seems imminent.

Well yeah it COULD be programmed that way but the government will probably make some regulations that they have to minimize the deaths in a collision, which means if the choice is between the one person in your car dying and the 5 people in the other car then you die.

[Rage Against the McKee]

So that wouldn't be driverless cars colliding then

No but your driverless car would still have to make some life-or-death decisions when it is about to collide with a driver-driven car....

I mean, shouldn't the car be programmed to always prioritize protecting its own passengers? It doesn't make much sense to program it to run itself into a tree or off a cliff even if a collision with another car seems imminent.

Well yeah it COULD be programmed that way but the government will probably make some regulations that they have to minimize the deaths in a collision, which means if the choice is between the one person in your car dying and the 5 people in the other car then you die.

These cars aren't going to know there are 5 people in the other car. Good grief.

Also, how do you kill the 5 people in the other car without putting yourself at serious risk? It's not an either/or choice.

[star seed 7]

Why wouldn't it?

Though you might be right. Emo EMAW types will fight a central network so that the cars will know what other cars are doing and optimize accordingly

[Emo EMAW]

The cars will absolutely know how many occupants they have. 

I think owners will be able to opt-in to sharing data with other cars, and they will do it for their own safety.  It could be required by the government, too, as driving is not a right and CAN BE INFRINGED.

[Dugout DickStone]

I could write a lot of different software over my lifetime, but I choose to never write or participate in development of software that decides who lives and who dies. I'm uncomfortable with it... even if it were possible to write bug-free code.

As driverless cars become a part of our future, someone will have to write software to make life and death decisions. Unfortunately with enough driven miles, circumstance will force an automated car to decide whether to kill its passengers or to kill other people. And someone will have to write "moral" code into the software that runs the car to make that decision.

On the whole, driverless cars will prevent a substantial portion of accidents and deaths from ever occurring, but chance will still force that worst of decisions. I'm all for saving lives and others writing this software. I'm just unwilling to take responsibility for if and when this code makes a wrong decision.

On the whole I tend to think the "I agree it's good and am all for other people doing it but can't do it myself for moral reasons" are some of the worst people on Earth.

I think the entire post was more of a Wackybrag than anything

[Rage Against the McKee]

The cars will absolutely know how many occupants they have. 

I think owners will be able to opt-in to sharing data with other cars, and they will do it for their own safety.  It could be required by the government, too, as driving is not a right and CAN BE INFRINGED.

The cars will know how many occupants are in their own vehicle. They aren't going to know how many occupants are in some other vehicle that is driven by humans.

[slobber]

What about a flood that washes a roadway out and no other cars have been on the road to document/record the lack of roadway?


Royals aren't gonna win 'em all

[star seed 7]

Why would that cause 2 cars to collide?

[Emo EMAW]

The cars will absolutely know how many occupants they have. 

I think owners will be able to opt-in to sharing data with other cars, and they will do it for their own safety.  It could be required by the government, too, as driving is not a right and CAN BE INFRINGED.

The cars will know how many occupants are in their own vehicle. They aren't going to know how many occupants are in some other vehicle that is driven by humans.

Agree.  They could maybe speculate based on model, visual measurement through windows of possible, etc.

[CNS]

1. There will be hacks available.
2. Mine will be hacked, if needed, to make sure all other lifeforms on planet earth are given second priority if my wife or offspring are in the car.

[Mrs. Gooch]

What if the choice is killing a bus load full of school children or paralyzing your kid? What would you choose?

[slobber]

Why would that cause 2 cars to collide?

Holes are weird.


Royals aren't gonna win 'em all

[star seed 7]

They certainly are 

[CNS]

What if the choice is killing a bus load full of school children or paralyzing your kid? What would you choose?

See #2 above

[Rage Against the McKee]

What if the choice is killing a bus load full of school children or paralyzing your kid? What would you choose?

Yeah, no way his kid gets paralyzed if the car just decides to go full speed ahead into that bus full of school children.