Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Wednesday October 12 2016, @05:43AM   Printer-friendly
from the no-more-heroes dept.

The technology is new, but the moral conundrum isn't: A self-driving car identifies a group of children running into the road. There is no time to stop. To swerve around them would drive the car into a speeding truck on one side or over a cliff on the other, bringing certain death to anybody inside.

To anyone pushing for a future for autonomous cars, this question has become the elephant in the room, argued over incessantly by lawyers, regulators, and ethicists; it has even been at the center of a human study by Science. Happy to have their names kept in the background of the life-or-death drama, most carmakers have let Google take the lead while making passing reference to ongoing research, investigations, or discussions.

But not Mercedes-Benz. Not anymore.

The world's oldest car maker no longer sees the problem, similar to the question from 1967 known as the Trolley Problem, as unanswerable. Rather than tying itself into moral and ethical knots in a crisis, Mercedes-Benz simply intends to program its self-driving cars to save the people inside the car. Every time.

Is it really a decision based on morality, or because choosing to save the pedestrians is much harder to code?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Informative) by captain normal on Wednesday October 12 2016, @05:53AM

    by captain normal (2205) on Wednesday October 12 2016, @05:53AM (#413291)

    In California the pedestrian has the right of way. So if such a Mercedes injures or kills one or more pedestrians, does the owner or the car company face attempted murder or manslaughter charges.

    --
    When life isn't going right, go left.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Informative=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 5, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday October 12 2016, @06:00AM

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday October 12 2016, @06:00AM (#413295) Journal

    I believe that is true in every state, with few exceptions. The interstate highways would be one exception. It's against the law to hitchhike, ride horses, motorized bicycles, farm implements, go-karts, or anything other than licensed, insured motor vehicles. There may be some other exceptions to the rule, but almost anywhere you can find pedestrians, those pedestrians have the right of way over any means of conveyance. Other countries may have their own laws, of course.

    Oh - airports. Pedestrians most certainly don't have the right of way on a runway, but that's really reaching for exceptions.

    • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 12 2016, @03:07PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 12 2016, @03:07PM (#413473)

      Some places allow pedestrians to utilize interstates. Colorado allows bicyclists to use the interstate in some places. That doesn't make them very smart bicyclists though.

    • (Score: 2) by darkfeline on Wednesday October 12 2016, @05:23PM

      by darkfeline (1030) on Wednesday October 12 2016, @05:23PM (#413546) Homepage

      >those pedestrians have the right of way over any means of conveyance

      Uh, no? Pedestrians have right of way at crosswalks, and at traffic lights, only when their walk signal is green/go. Anywhere else is jaywalking, illegal, they have no right of way. While vehicles are expected to yield out of human compassion, it is the pedestrian's fault if the driver doesn't have time to react (within reason).

      --
      Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
      • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday October 12 2016, @07:04PM

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday October 12 2016, @07:04PM (#413590) Journal

        Within reason. Good luck with reasoning with a jury, if you should be so unlucky as to hit a pedestrian almost anywhere. Unless there is a very specific law that forbids pedestrian traffic, or restricting pedestrian traffic, then the ped has the right of way.

        We don't see a whole lot of crosswalks in this part of the country. And, there are no walk signals.

        The only jaywalking ticket I've ever seen, was given to me in San Diego. The moment the cop looked away, I tossed that into a trash can. Not all of us are city dwellers.

        But, even in New York, people go where they want to go. Downtown Manhattan? Yeah, you pretty much stay with intersections and crosswalks, because there is no other safe way to cross the street. Cross the river into Brooklyn, and the rules are pretty much the same as out here in the country.

        One thing is certain - I always yeild to pedestrians, no matter where I'm at. Even on the interstate, which I've noted above is generally illegal for pedestrians.

        • (Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Thursday October 13 2016, @03:31AM

          by bzipitidoo (4388) on Thursday October 13 2016, @03:31AM (#413754) Journal

          Once a cop gave me a warning for jaywalking-- on a college campus, on a route I'd taken dozens of times. Was on sidewalks the whole time, which were obviously meant for pedestrians.

          I was like, WTF? Okay, what happened? Something had to have happened for the cops to be scurrying around chasing down pedestrians. I didn't know I was on the only campus in the whole state of Texas that didn't give pedestrians right of way, and the previous week there'd been an incident in which a car struck a pedestrian. Well that exception to the norm didn't last long after that. About two weeks later, the university changed the rules to give pedestrians right of way everywhere on campus.

          Anyway, why not move pedestrians above the streets? Put the whole dang sidewalk at about the level of the 3rd story of an average apartment. Make most of the buildings at least 3 stories tall, and connect their 3rd floors to the walkway. I know, I know, it would be very expensive. But nowhere near as much as we've already spent on automobile roads.

          • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday October 13 2016, @01:34PM

            by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday October 13 2016, @01:34PM (#413880) Journal

            Not a bad idea at all - in denseley populated areas. Wouldn't work well in most of Small Town America, but it makes sense in the big cities. No more waiting for a safe gap in traffic, no more conforming to crosswalk and green "walk" nonsense. Just connect all the buildings up in the air, and be done with it. Architecture would be a major pain, though. Every person who owns a building within the connected maze is going to raise some sort of objection. "Dude, it's the LAW! You've got to provide access to the walkway, it's just that simple! Now we can do this the easy way, or we can do it the hard way, but you WILL eventually compromise with us!"

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 12 2016, @07:46PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 12 2016, @07:46PM (#413608)

        Anywhere else is jaywalking, illegal, they have no right of way.

        WRONG! You vehicularly murderous person, you! Pedestrians always have the right of way, even when they are jaywalkiing, because they are soft and smooshy, while most vehicles are not.

        • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Wednesday October 12 2016, @07:58PM

          by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday October 12 2016, @07:58PM (#413612) Journal

          But you know, even though sail has right of way over steam, a liner can't avoid a sailboat.

          There's "right of way" and then there's sense. You don't walk in front of a truck&trailer that's moving. It can't reasonably stop.

          This whole area is just full of edge cases, so I agree with the summary, they probably did it to make implementation simpler.

          --
          Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 12 2016, @10:54PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 12 2016, @10:54PM (#413679)

      you do not live in KY. I have seen Combines going down the freeway, blocking all lanes and it is just fine.

      CA also has basic speed law, that means you cannot go any faster than what is front of you, IF that is person and you hit them, you were speeding, period. But they also have an anti-blocking law. So if you are driving a tractor down the road and more than 5 vehicles are blocked by you from going the speed limit, you must pull to right at next available spot and stop, allowing for the trailing vehicles to pass.

  • (Score: 2) by Some call me Tim on Wednesday October 12 2016, @06:07AM

    by Some call me Tim (5819) on Wednesday October 12 2016, @06:07AM (#413299)

    While this is true, pedestrians also have a duty to make sure the way is clear. In other words, some dickhead wearing headphones and stepping out into traffic is not free and clear if a car that has the right of way hits him. Pedestrians also have some responsibility for their own safety. I've seen more than a few peds try to cross against the light and cause accidents from motorists trying to avoid them.

    --
    Questioning science is how you do science!
    • (Score: 1) by Francis on Wednesday October 12 2016, @02:42PM

      by Francis (5544) on Wednesday October 12 2016, @02:42PM (#413454)

      What duty? They have a responsibility to themselves to be on the look out for things like this because the court can't order them back to life or uninjured. But, there's no legal obligation for them to do that at the present. It just influences the charges that are brought and the ultimate amount of financial liability for the driver.

      It's similar to drivers driving defensively, you do that out of self-interest, not because you have some sort of obligation to do it.

      There are some situations like jaywalking where it might be legal to run them over, but even there, it's a really, really bad idea to do that if you can avoid it. Chances are that if you can see them a couple seconds ahead of time and don't at least try to stop, that you'll wind up in prison.

  • (Score: 2) by Entropy on Wednesday October 12 2016, @07:20AM

    by Entropy (4228) on Wednesday October 12 2016, @07:20AM (#413329)

    It's stupid for a pedestrian to have right of way if they walk into the middle of a highway(not at a crosswalk). In most parts of the country if they do this and get mowed down it's their own fault...try to be less stupid in your next life.

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday October 12 2016, @07:52AM

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday October 12 2016, @07:52AM (#413337) Journal

      It's a combination of history, and common sense. Pedestrians should have the right of way. As I pointed out above, we are all pedestrians. Unless you keep your car in your living room, you have to walk to the car. And, unless you park inside your office, you have to walk to the car again to go home.

      The history bit? Well, when motor vehicle laws were being written, automobiles weren't so ubiquitous as they are today. Cars were rare, and lawmakers weren't inclined to grant special rights to car owners. Drive at your own risk, and if you kill someone walking to the store, it's your ass.

      No blanket rule really applies anymore. Today, there are a lot of places where pedestrians really shouldn't be found. The busy intersection in front of Walmart, the previously mentioned interstate highways, and probably more. But, we all have to walk. What about school zones? God help you if you kill a kid in a marked school zone. Doesn't matter if you were only doing 25 MPH, and the kid lowered his head and ran into your car like a goat. It's still going to be your ass.

      Downtown in most towns and small cities? Pedestrians rule. Just accept it. Any park expects you to park the damned car, and enjoy the park on foot. Amusment centers, of any type or size.

      I am a rather aggressive driver, but there are times and places where you need to just slow down, and yeild the right of way to whoever, and whatever.

      And, even if that pedestrian has absolutely no business in whatever place I happen to find him, I certainly don't want to hit him going at highway speeds. It'll screw up your car, it'll screw up your day, and it'll screw up your insurance.

      • (Score: 2) by Entropy on Wednesday October 12 2016, @08:50PM

        by Entropy (4228) on Wednesday October 12 2016, @08:50PM (#413634)

        There are clearly some "pedestrian zones", for lack of a better word. Areas where pedestrians are the primary, and cars need to yield no matter what. Some examples include crosswalks, sidewalks, probably parking lots, and such. Large cities function differently from the rest of the world, of course. In NYC being a pedestrian is a totally different thing than somewhere like Idaho.

        In my opinion a rural or suburban school zone doesn't qualify because most schools are on their own roads nowadays, but they still infect the nearest actual road with a school zone completely annihilating traffic. Does this mean pedestrians should be able to violate pedestrian laws and cross at random points/odd angles/lay in the street? No. It means we should go slower to try to increase safety but not immunize idiocy. If someone is 12 and thinks sitting in the street is OK the world is probably better off if they are waffled.

        In most areas(not large cities) we are no longer a pedestrian society. Except for areas designated for pedestrians cars need to have right of way. If someone wants to risk crossing a highway in dark clothes at night good luck to them, but if they are waffled it's on them.

      • (Score: 3, Funny) by lgw on Wednesday October 12 2016, @08:57PM

        by lgw (2836) on Wednesday October 12 2016, @08:57PM (#413639)

        Pedestrians should have the right of way.

        Get a car, hippie.

        Unless you keep your car in your living room, you have to walk to the car. And, unless you park inside your office, you have to walk to the car again to go home.

        Most places in the US have parking lots adjacent. I'm pretty sure I've never in my life had to cross a street on foot to get from my living room to my car. Do you live someplace with no parking? Why would you do that?

        Pedestrians rule. Just accept it.

        Get a car, hippie.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 12 2016, @10:15AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 12 2016, @10:15AM (#413383)

    So if such a Mercedes injures or kills one or more pedestrians, does the owner or the car company face attempted murder or manslaughter charges.

    This is not informative, this is bullshit.

    1. pedestrians do not have the right of walking in path of a car and expect it to be able to stop in impossible situations.
    2. see #1

    You see, the world of law is not "black and white" like you seem to believe.

    Right of way means that cars cannot expect you to yield. That's all. What the program just needs to do is determine if it is possible to avoid a crash without causing injuries to occupants of the car *AND* additional injuries to outside pedestrians, whatevers. The simple and correct solution is to break and avoid crashing into things. If you cannot avoid crashing into things without crashing into bigger things, you just break.

    If pedestrians step out in front of the car, right of way does not reduce their liability in causing that crash.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 12 2016, @12:45PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 12 2016, @12:45PM (#413409)

      There's a difference between "break" and "brake". You might want to learn that difference, because your post doesn't say what you probably meant it to say.

    • (Score: 1) by Francis on Wednesday October 12 2016, @02:29PM

      by Francis (5544) on Wednesday October 12 2016, @02:29PM (#413448)

      They absolutely do have the right to do that. Just not all the time everywhere. If what you said were true, then vehicular manslaughter wouldn't be a thing in cases like that.

      Also, the correct thing for the car to do is to kill the people in the vehicle if it assesses that the number that would be killed would be smaller. I'm a bit skeptical that the sensors are good enough to know how many people would be involved in the possibilities, but assuming the car can accurately sense the number of people, the correct thing to do would be to kill the occupants of the car to save the larger number of people.

      This isn't a moral dilemma, it's something that's treated like a moral dilemma because the people who driver Mercedes are rich, but it's really not a moral dilemma. A moral dilemma would be if the car should pull into oncoming traffic killing 2 people in order to save a small number of pedestrians. That would at least be some sort of dilemma. But, again, the answer would be to pull into oncoming traffic in that scenario.

  • (Score: 2) by deimtee on Wednesday October 12 2016, @05:45PM

    by deimtee (3272) on Wednesday October 12 2016, @05:45PM (#413558) Journal

    There is no legal concept of "right of way" such that you can drive through someone else. What there is, is a "requirement to yield" in certain situations. Like facing a stop sign or a give way sign, being on the minor road at an intersection, etc.
    In most places, avoiding a foreseeable accident is also a reason to yield, such that if you could avoid an accident but don't then you will be considered legally at fault. You never have the right to crash into someone/something.

    --
    If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.