Interesting idea for self-driving cars

"CB" (jrcb)
10/16/2016 at 14:10 • Filed to: None

I was talking with Old Man CB yesterday, and the topic of autonomous cars came up. I mentioned how Mercedes has gone all in with protecting the passengers/driver, and he proposed an interesting counter: why not let the driver decide?

He put it like this: give the driver essentially a ten point slider, with a one being “save others” and a ten being “save me”, and let the driver choose what their autonomous car do if they face a dangerous situation. He also suggested that they would have that preference assigned to a key or a login for whenever a different driver gets in the car. So I could prefer to save others, while he could prefer to save himself, and we’d both be relatively happy with the same car.

I mean, it makes sense when you think about it. Not every driver will swerve to avoid people or animals (or decide to run them down), so why have your autonomous car be pre-programmed with a decision you don’t necessarily agree with? Now, how this would affect insurance and everything is up in the air, but I think it’s a pretty decent middle ground. What do you lot think? Does this idea need some further fleshing out?

DISCUSSION (16)

Dr. Zoidberg - RIP Oppo > CB
10/16/2016 at 14:22

I bet if the information were to remain completely anonymous (which of course it won’t), almost everyone would prioritize their own lives #1.

BvdV - The Dutch Engineer > CB
10/16/2016 at 14:23

I like the idea, because this would solve one of the main problems that is present in the world of fully autonomous cars(or at least that’s what I’m being taught at university).

Goggles Pizzano > CB
10/16/2016 at 14:24

CB > Dr. Zoidberg - RIP Oppo
10/16/2016 at 14:24

Probably, but then the decision would be theirs to make, just like it is when they drive now.

MrDakka > CB
10/16/2016 at 14:25

So the legal onus is shifted to the driver and presumably to the insurance companies?

DC3 LS, will be perpetually replacing cars until the end of time > CB
10/16/2016 at 14:26

I think it’d be a lot of trouble because you’d have to have a very precise damage “scoring” system. From what I’ve read it seems the reason they’re prioritizing the driver over pedestrians is because it’s to difficult for the car to judge the pedestrians chance of survival. Plus the car has no way to predict a pedestrian’s actions. So why try to make maneuvers to save something when you don’t know how it’ll react?

All in all I think this whole Driver vs Pedestrian dilemma is overrated. I think it’ll be vary rare that a true driver or pedestrian’s life situation arises.

Dr. Zoidberg - RIP Oppo > CB
10/16/2016 at 14:26

Then isn’t the only logical solution to keep driving cars instead? That’s what I’m going with.

CB > MrDakka
10/16/2016 at 14:27

Not really shifting the legal onus, since it would pretty much be the status quo. Maybe certain insurance companies would give you better rates depending on what you chose?

CB > Dr. Zoidberg - RIP Oppo
10/16/2016 at 14:28

Maybe, but there are other benefits to self-driving cars, such as not having to worry about drunk driving or texting or being tired.

MrDakka > CB
10/16/2016 at 14:34

Dr. Zoidberg - RIP Oppo > CB
10/16/2016 at 14:34

We’re always giving up freedoms because we bow to our fears.

bob and john > CB
10/16/2016 at 14:35

now, why would you ned insurance at that point? you’re not driving anymore. Insurance wouldn’t really be a thing. I dont need insurance to get on the bus now do I?

Dr. Zoidberg - RIP Oppo > bob and john
10/16/2016 at 14:42

A future without auto insurance shenanigans? Hmm, not so bad.

BloodlessWeevil > CB
10/16/2016 at 15:26

In the context of autonomous cars, the trolley problem assumes perfect knowledge of the environment. In reality the vehicle/driver cannot be sure there will not be more pedestrians, vehicles, or structures in the alternate path it takes by swerving off the road. The choice is not one person dies vs several people die. It is a collision with people in the road vs throwing a car wildly off the road and into whatever happens to be over there at the time.

Just because a human driver might do something stupid does not mean we should program autonomous vehicles to do the same. There is a right answer, and it is hard braking to mitigate the collision.

wiffleballtony > CB
10/16/2016 at 15:50

Removing the drivers choice is the sole purpose of autonomous vehicles. I’m surprised they will let choose the destination just in case it’s something socially irresponsible.

AMGtech - now with more recalls! > bob and john
10/16/2016 at 16:03

Personal property. Kind of like homeowners. Health insurance would fill in injury gaps. But for those of us who live in countries with broken health insurance systems this doesn’t sound like a good idea at all, I imagine rates would skyrocket and plans would probably triple in complexity. Not because they would need to, but that’s how our absolutely wonderful and completely philanthropic health insurance companies work.