Self driving car debate

Watch
GodAtum
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#1
It's interesting why people debate out this. IMO people are asking the wrong questions. For example, should an AI car kill a groups of kids or you as the driver. Well, I seem to be the only one who is addressing the elephant in the room by saying i won't buy a car that wouldn't save my life (or my family's) above anyone elses. Any I reckon 99% of people are thinking the same but too leftie to admit it.
0
reply
Tempest II
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#2
Report 4 years ago
#2
If you were driving, would you prioritise saving yourself over the lives of a group of kids?
I actually think most people, if I really came down to it, would risk greater injury/death to themselves to avoid killing kids .
It becomes more difficult if you've also got family/kids in your car. There's never really a right answer in that situation .
1
reply
caravaggio2
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#3
Report 4 years ago
#3
The case in America where a man was killed in an accident in one when his car drove at 67mph into the side wall of a lorry that was across the carriageway while turning should have put paid to the driverless car, but it looks like it hasnt.
The camera that looks forward couldnt see the white sheet metal of the lorry against the white backgound of the sky. It didnt even attempt to brake.
0
reply
username1732491
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#4
Report 4 years ago
#4
(Original post by caravaggio2)
The case in America where a man was killed in an accident in one when his car drove at 67mph into the side wall of a lorry that was across the carriageway while turning should have put paid to the driverless car, but it looks like it hasnt.
The camera that looks forward couldnt see the white sheet metal of the lorry against the white backgound of the sky. It didnt even attempt to brake.
It wasn't anything to do with colours. The way the car sees objects is not through a picture, but through radar (or something similar). Essentially it recreates the world based on how close things are, though I believe it can also see coloured light (which helps with traffic lights).

What killed the guy was the fact that the lorry had a high arch - the load was positioned well above the ground and there wasn't a side skirt, so the car saw an open gap, but didn't account for the height of the car. This mistake should never have happened - the car should have known its own height and been able to use it.
0
reply
uberteknik
  • Study Helper
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#5
Report 4 years ago
#5
Autopilot/ self driving cars are developed by big business with road traffic another way of exploiting a potential and extremely lucrative cash stream.

Rather like operating system software, one company will end up monopolising the market like Google, A Amazon, Uber etc.

We are sleepwalking into a time when we will all have to pay dearly for getting into our cars because these companies will own the licences for the roads we need to use anytine: to get to work, shopping, holidays, pleasure etc.

We will have to buy the software or we won't be allowed to use the roads. We will have to pay for the licence every year and we will have to pay for every metre we travel on.

This is essentially the internet model applied to the real highways.

Thus is all being pushed as a way of increasing road safety, reducing traffic congestion and reducing the burden of infrastructure upkeep taxes.

It will be a loss-leader and free to start with as a way of reaching critical mass first and fastest. Then will come the inevitable fees. People (young people) did this to the music industry by freely downloading without paying and now wonder why music festivals and gigs have exorbitant prices.

Governments will love this but the real price will be, once again, curbing our freedoms and relinquishing more control to big business.

The obscenely rich getting richer and us paying for the privilege of getting from a to b.

Who kills whom, is a smoke screen to divert attention from the real issues we are sleepwalking into -which by the time the legal issues are resolved- will be all too late.
1
reply
Joinedup
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#6
Report 4 years ago
#6
(Original post by TimGB)
It wasn't anything to do with colours. The way the car sees objects is not through a picture, but through radar (or something similar). Essentially it recreates the world based on how close things are, though I believe it can also see coloured light (which helps with traffic lights).

What killed the guy was the fact that the lorry had a high arch - the load was positioned well above the ground and there wasn't a side skirt, so the car saw an open gap, but didn't account for the height of the car. This mistake should never have happened - the car should have known its own height and been able to use it.
I think it'll probably reduce accidents and deaths overall by preventing a lot of common driver mistakes... but still kill quite a few people by making mistakes like this that are unlike the ones a human would make... the people killed by self driving cars will be basically taking one for the team. I don't know how we'll handle that, probably plenty for the legal profession to wrangle with.

Don't know how you're going to phase it in. the earliest and therefore buggiest version of the software will have to cope with a baffling mixture of self driving and human driven cars on the road - 10 years down the line the less buggy software on faster computers will have less work to do.

The early focus of the people developing new stuff is always getting it to work at all rather than work while being secure - we've already seen a ddos type attack from IoT devices http://www.computerworld.com/article...g-rampant.html
I think early self drive systems will get a lot of attention from hackers, people trying to jam their sensors etc.

Car companies aren't saints as we saw with the recent emissions scandal... I don't think the people running them have got the same ethos as people running other safety critical businesses... and that's a bit scary.
0
reply
PTMalewski
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#7
Report 4 years ago
#7
(Original post by Joinedup)
Car companies aren't saints as we saw with the recent emissions scandal... I don't think the people running them have got the same ethos as people running other safety critical businesses... and that's a bit scary.
It is not the case of Mr Henry Ford making that or other decision anymore.

If the president would like to make better, safer, more eco and more durable cars for cost of lower incomes, a board of directors would prevent him from doing so, because they are rewarded for fincancial results of a company.
Even if whole board of directors would like to do such good cars, causing a lower income, this would cause a rage among shareholders. Any quality improvement is possible only if directors believe that this will have good effect on future income.

Of course, this is partially balanced by other factors, such as marketing policy of green image etc. but the end, an income is the fundamental factor.

(Original post by GodAtum)
For example, should an AI car kill a groups of kids or you as the driver. Well, I seem to be the only one who is addressing the elephant in the room by saying i won't buy a car that wouldn't save my life (or my family's) above anyone elses. Any I reckon 99% of people are thinking the same but too leftie to admit it.
This so called "dilema" is the most stupid ethical problem I've ever heard widely discussed with no solution, while solution is simple like a flail.
Each driver would behave differently in such situation. So just leave things as they are, and then you have no problem with killer-cars, nor no problem of people who don't want to buy cars that prefer life of pedestrians over the driver's.

Simply, have two programs in cars' computer and let the owner to choose protection priority.
0
reply
mojojojo101
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#8
Report 4 years ago
#8
(Original post by caravaggio2)
The case in America where a man was killed in an accident in one when his car drove at 67mph into the side wall of a lorry that was across the carriageway while turning should have put paid to the driverless car, but it looks like it hasnt.
The camera that looks forward couldnt see the white sheet metal of the lorry against the white backgound of the sky. It didnt even attempt to brake.
Last year 35,000 people died in car crashes on American roads. The truth is most people suck at driving and driverless cars would only have to be moderately better to significantly decrease the amount of deaths on the road.
0
reply
PTMalewski
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#9
Report 4 years ago
#9
Actually Scandinavians are pretty good at driving, because they have far better system of driving lessons and exams, than most of European countries, not to mention the american system.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How would you feel if uni students needed to be double vaccinated to start in Autumn?

I'd feel reassured about my own health (21)
17.07%
I'd feel reassured my learning may be less disrupted by isolations/lockdowns (40)
32.52%
I'd feel less anxious about being around large groups (12)
9.76%
I don't mind if others are vaccinated or not (13)
10.57%
I'm concerned it may disadvantage some students (6)
4.88%
I think it's an unfair expectation (29)
23.58%
Something else (tell us in the thread) (2)
1.63%

Watched Threads

View All