Comments
-
@I Are Lebo, yes. Bmws aren’t the assholes. Just their drivers
-
@BigJohnson86, *BMW chooses not to install signals. Claiming they are unnecessary*
-
Why would you buy a car that's self-driving feature would harm you to save some scrubs walking? Smh
-
@ Ump89, You have a point, who would want a car the drives into a tree because a kid ran into the road?
-
@Bad Suggestions, that’s just nature taking its course. Too many dumb kids in the world already
-
@ Ump89, one of the biggest issues people have with the Idea of self driving cars
-
@ Ump89, can't get hit by a car if you don't walk into the street
-
@Nudity Industries, if only that were true
-
Keep Summer safe
-
You can smell the lawsuits.
-
@ThePandaPool , it’s a lose lose situation you can get angry lawsuits from the driver’s family or the pedestrian’s there’s no way of truly solving this
-
@eleven, the moment a kid is run down and killed with certainty in order to avoid an accident, it would be damn easy to win that suit.
-
@ThePandaPool , that’s the same thing that would happen with a normal car though
-
@Cpzombie, things are different when it's a company is liable. Legally anyways.
-
@eleven, the only one at fault for the deaths would be the company. If their programming was sufficient then they would be able to avoid the accident. Lets give and example, going down a street and there are cars on parked on the sides of a road. A kid jumps out from behind a car into the front of a car. The car instantly calculates it will/can stop in 15 feet, the child is 9 feet away. The impact force at 9 feet is also calculated to be enough to kill the child. What should the car do? A. Hit the child B. Do not apply brakes make a sharp right turn to hit vehicle beside you and stop in 8 feet. C. Do nothing
-
@Cpzombie, the programming isnt an accident. Its a premeditated action.
-
@Implicit88, sure, but if someone jumps in front of the car within the stopping distance it’s better to not wreck the car and potentially seriously hurt some innocent driver next to you
-
@Cpzombie, not arguing the best course of action i am merely stating one is an accident the other is not. U can compound this example to a car and a bus filled with kids. One hydro planes, an accident is sure to be caused, the hydro plaining vehicle (the bus)cannot move so the car must take action. It can either run into a barrier which will flip the car but the bus wont be hit. Or it could hit the bus saving the driving life since the impact will be less but the bus will flip and take severe damage. There is no right or wrong answer. The only potential answer could be to save the most lives possible.
-
@Implicit88, busses are pretty massive, so a small car wouldn’t be too bad (even if it does flip, they have all those safety doors), I’d much rather hit the bus... I’m only 20 and without kids though, I guess my opinion will probably change when I get old
-
Unit 262, speeding up for impact.
-
Rich enough to afford a Mercedes, rich enough to pay fines for murder
-
This is actually a really interesting moral question. Of course most most people would say that if the options for a self driving vehicle were to crash into a truck and kill the occupant or swerve and hit the two children playing by the road then the self driving car should sacrifice the person sleeping on the back seat. But then people wouldn’t buy them. If manufacturers sold them with the choice of programming people would choose the o e that’s gonna save their life and kill the kids so manufacturers will make the vehicle prioritise protecting occupants
-
That breaks the first law of robotics
-
Yes! AI ftw!
Would self-driving BMW’s use turn signals?