Vehicle Automation: Moved from Charlie Alliston Thread

[Tin Pot]

/there is a whole branch of moral philosophy dealing with such questions: Trolleyology

The initial Trolley problem:

The trolley problem is a thought experiment in ethics. The general form of the problem is this:

There is a runaway trolley barreling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one person on the side track. You have two options:

1. Do nothing, and the trolley kills the five people on the main track.
2. Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person.

Which is the most ethical choice?

and
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04grcnd

I'm not sure what in my post made you think that I am naive to these dilemmas and their ilk, but I can assure you that I'm not.

 

[srw]

Well that's alright then. Ensuring that the bullying-out-of-the-way-and-victim-blaming strategy fails will depend on actively resisting it, not on complacently assuming it just won't work and everything will be OK.

Of course it does. But I think you underestimate the willingness of regulators and governments - local, national and international - to support that resistance. And the recognition amongst corporate managements that the general public, rather than just their own customers, are important stakeholders. And my experience of the world is that working together to change minds usually gets you further, quicker, than absolute opposition.

 

[oldstrath]

Of course it does. But I think you underestimate the willingness of regulators and governments - local, national and international - to support that resistance. And the recognition amongst corporate managements that the general public, rather than just their own customers, are important stakeholders. And my experience of the world is that working together to change minds usually gets you further, quicker, than absolute opposition.

I find it difficult to share your optimism, given that VW still exists despite routinely and consistently cheating.

 

[mjr]

Somtimes crossings are placed so as to act as traffic calming.

"architects stated, without any hint of irony, that they are designing in shared space so they can use pedestrians to slow down the cyclists. Our group was shocked that this approach to designing public space was acceptable and considered ‘clever’ and reasonable. This idea that you can ‘control’ cyclists by throwing pedestrians at them really needs to die. It creates so many issues."

(but I know it happens with using walkers and cyclists as human speedbumps for cars too - I just hadn't read such a revelation for that recently.)

 

[mjr]

[QUOTE 4975120, member: 9609"]the highway code already states "you should wear a helmet"

I really can't see the self driving car brigade arguing for compulsory helmets and cycle path use as it would be an omission that they may accidentally knock cyclists off, these vehicles are hopefully not going to knock anyone off.[/QUOTE]
I suspect they will present it as "these irresponsible highway-code-ignoring cyclists ride into our vehicles, injure themselves because they still won't wear even basic decades-old protection and then we get blamed - force them to take more care!"

As well as helmets, the Highway Code also basically tells you to use cycle facilities with a few caveats. Both of those, the bit implicitly blaming non-use of stab vests for encouraging knife attacks - sorry I mean the bit implicitly blaming dark clothing for motorists not looking where they're going - and the crap advice implying it's a good idea to turn right from the left lane at T-junctions and roundabouts should be simply deleted from the Highway Code.

 

[Dan B]

[QUOTE 4975120, member: 9609"]the highway code already states "you should wear a helmet"

I really can't see the self driving car brigade arguing for compulsory helmets and cycle path use as it would be an omission that they may accidentally knock cyclists off, these vehicles are hopefully not going to knock anyone off.[/QUOTE]
Just as the law sees "blind spot/cyclists stay back" signs on the back of human-driven vehicles as admissions the vehicles aren't suitable for use on public roads, you mean?

 

[toffee]

This week's Radio Lab this week is about self driving cars and the trolley problem.

From one of the comments in the linked article.

"...Just as we have educated pedestrians to stay out of railroad crossings when the gates come down, don't you think that pedestrians can be educated to stay out of the streets unless they have a walk sign? "

 

[si_c]

From one of the comments in the linked article.

"...Just as we have educated pedestrians to stay out of railroad crossings when the gates come down, don't you think that pedestrians can be educated to stay out of the streets unless they have a walk sign? "

Because that worked with drivers and red lights.

 

[theclaud]

Some interesting stuff relevant to autonomous vehicle ethics on R4's Analysis at the moment.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b098ht04