• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Driverless cars

scaramanga

Paul Miller
Staff member
So I hear the government are going to allow driverless car trials from January. Welcome news for me - it's not often we're towards the front of tech, but I like this.

When I heard the news item though, one moral dilemma immediately sprang to mind and I really don't know what the manufacturers would do about it.

Let me start by pointing out that I'm talking about true driverless cars, not the Google one where a driver still needs to be able to take control and is liable in an accident. I mean the kind where you can sit and do work or watch a film while the car does the driving - like being on the train but more comfortable, cleaner and without all the ghastly people.

So what if my car is driving down a street and a child runs out in front? There's no time to stop and coming the other way is another car - swerving around the child would absolutely cause a head-on collision. Now, if I'm in the car on my own, I'll take my chances with the collision but what if my child is in the car? In that situation I wouldn't want to risk the life of my own child to save somebody else's.

There's a lot of other things to take into account too - if the other car is a G-Wizz - I'll plough into it all day, my car probably wouldn't even slow down. But what if it's a Range Rover? That would probably flatten my car.

So how would I tell my driverless car that I want it to save my child's life above all others? And how can a manufacturer tell a computer to make that kind of moral decision?
 
Almost certainly there won't be any legal/advertised way to do this at least. I suppose one could imagine some illegal underground possibility to change those settings in the car, but I'm guessing that would make you liable should that result in damage to someone else. Add a standard "software evaluation" procedure by the police after any accident and you're well on your way to at least a science fiction short story, possibly even a book, movie or tv-episode ;)

As for the capability of a computer to make those decisions, they wont' be perfect, they won't be the same as yours, but overall I'm guessing that driverless cars will make better decisions than humans in those snap decision situations.
 
i think we are a long way off these being on general roads, it'll be a bus lane kinda thing for a while which can be cordoned off to avoid this
 
Almost certainly there won't be any legal/advertised way to do this at least. I suppose one could imagine some illegal underground possibility to change those settings in the car, but I'm guessing that would make you liable should that result in damage to someone else. Add a standard "software evaluation" procedure by the police after any accident and you're well on your way to at least a science fiction short story, possibly even a book, movie or tv-episode ;)

As for the capability of a computer to make those decisions, they wont' be perfect, they won't be the same as yours, but overall I'm guessing that driverless cars will make better decisions than humans in those snap decision situations.

I'm not sure software's there yet to make that kind of decision.

In order to fully evaluate the risks it would need to know the age/size of my child, the kind of seat he's in, the speed/mass of the other car and any actions the other car would/wouldn't take. In fact, it would have to communicate with the other car about its passengers too.

What if there's a child in each car and each has a poor survival chance in a head-on collision? Then it must make sense not to swerve, but can we ask software to make that decision?

Another interesting question is whether I could buy a car that allows me to take control when I want to have a bit of fun/get where I need to be really quickly that doesn't require me to take over in an emergency. Can I have a fully driverless car that still has a manual mode?
 
i think we are a long way off these being on general roads, it'll be a bus lane kinda thing for a while which can be cordoned off to avoid this

I don't think that will ever be practical - it's just as **** as buses or tubes then. OK, not quite as **** - at least you'd have air-con and privacy.

But one of the best things about a car is its ability to go from doorstep to doorstep. If it has to follow designated lanes then it's unlikely to sell as anything other than a novelty. I'd rather just jump in a cab.
 
I'm not sure software's there yet to make that kind of decision.

In order to fully evaluate the risks it would need to know the age/size of my child, the kind of seat he's in, the speed/mass of the other car and any actions the other car would/wouldn't take. In fact, it would have to communicate with the other car about its passengers too.

What if there's a child in each car and each has a poor survival chance in a head-on collision? Then it must make sense not to swerve, but can we ask software to make that decision?

Another interesting question is whether I could buy a car that allows me to take control when I want to have a bit of fun/get where I need to be really quickly that doesn't require me to take over in an emergency. Can I have a fully driverless car that still has a manual mode?

I agree that the software is not there yet, but I think it will be, I wasn't entirely clear in my previous post.

Communication between different cars on the road network seems probable if a highly functional driverless car system is to be developed, though I'm not sure about communications about passengers to make these kinds of largely philosophical decisions.

The good thing about software is that we can ask it to make that decision, we probably couldn't ask a human to - or we could, but it would be cruel.

Manual mode is also interesting. I guess we're in agreement that for a fairly long time that will be pretty standard as a lot of people enjoy driving and because driverless cars will be unsuited for some situations. If we ever get to the point where a choice has to be made if a manual mode purely for the enjoyment of driving should be allowed or not I don't know what I would vote for.
 
I don't think that will ever be practical - it's just as **** as buses or tubes then. OK, not quite as **** - at least you'd have air-con and privacy.

But one of the best things about a car is its ability to go from doorstep to doorstep. If it has to follow designated lanes then it's unlikely to sell as anything other than a novelty. I'd rather just jump in a cab.

I think in a transitional and testing period it seems reasonable.
 
[video=youtube;Xbjdmw8D9-Y]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbjdmw8D9-Y[/video]

I know its not the true driverless car, ie driving from door to door but this will probably be the first step. Would love to be able just to join a convoy system on a long drive and just sit back and relax,
 
I know its not the true driverless car, ie driving from door to door but this will probably be the first step. Would love to be able just to join a convoy system on a long drive and just sit back and relax,

That would work - switch on the autopilot when you get onto the motorway network and leave it on until it wakes you up for your exit.
 
its more a social than a technological issue, getting people to trust the system, they'll have to do it in baby steps
 
That would work - switch on the autopilot when you get onto the motorway network and leave it on until it wakes you up for your exit.

GHod i would love that, and the amount of congestion on the motorways that would probably be cured due to it would be huge.
 
its more a social than a technological issue, getting people to trust the system, they'll have to do it in baby steps

I know I say this a lot but....


There's a really good Freakonomics podcast on that. The general feeling is that around 5-10 fatalities a year (nationally) would be enough to completely remove trust in the system, even if the accident rate was a tiny fraction of that due to driver error.
 
I know I say this a lot but....


There's a really good Freakonomics podcast on that. The general feeling is that around 5-10 fatalities a year (nationally) would be enough to completely remove trust in the system, even if the accident rate was a tiny fraction of that due to driver error.

Keep saying it, usually good information from the freaks...

Will probably guide the development a lot.
 
its more a social than a technological issue, getting people to trust the system, they'll have to do it in baby steps
My understanding from the trials in California is that the most dangerous part is moving from computer to human control. Google's plan should this ever go on general sale is to have no driver controls in the car for this reason and the only reason they have included them in the test car is because Californian law requires them. It will be interesting to see what our government puts in place for trials here.
 
it's a trust thing, I wouldn't trust any other human being alive to be a better driver than me let alone a computer

same reason I don't drink when flying, I might need to save the day
 
In this vein of thought, how does the driverless car work out what is in the road? How sophisticated is it?


Will it be able to differentiate between a deer lying in the road and a child lying in the road?
That shouldn't be a problem as cars can and do already stop for obstacles. It's the unexpected obstacles that can't be predicted that will be a problem.
 
Back