Autonomous Vehicles

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppabillytea

As i've said before, there is at least one Manufacturer who's intention it is, to program their cars to save their occupants, in the event that their AV has to avoid an accident. This will happen even if it means taking innocent lives in process.
Think about the implications of this. No Vehicle programmed in such a way should ever be allowed on Australian roads.
It should me mandatory that an AV be programmed to save innocent lives rather than those of its occupants.
The arrogance of such arsehole manufacturers is staggering to say the the least. It does not matter how unlikely such an event might be, no vehicle should take an innocent life.

---

So, you have decided the occupants are lot innocent.

I only point this out to illustrate the complexity of the situation.

I agree with you in that they should not be allowed on public roads. At least not until the legalities have been sorted out to protect the occupants of the vehicles and third parties.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mick_Marsh

So, you have decided the occupants are lot innocent.

I only point this out to illustrate the complexity of the situation.

I agree with you in that they should not be allowed on public roads. At least not until the legalities have been sorted out to protect the occupants of the vehicles and third parties.

---

Thanks Mick.

In the event that a Vehicle has no driver the Vehicle becomes the Nominal Driver. Yes or no?
The Vehicle then, must assume the moral, ethical and legal imperatives that are placed on a Human Driver. Yes or no?
The occupants of the Vehicle have either entered it voluntarily or have been put in it by a higher authority. Yes or no?
The Vehicle is then directed to undertake a journey, either by the occupants or a higher authority. Yes or no?
During the journey the vehicle is forced to avoid a runaway truck in order to save its occupants. Unfortunately the only path available is through a group of bystanders in a park 10 Meters from the road who are all killed.
The Vehicle had no choice but to do what it was programmed to do. It could have been programmed to spare the bystanders and chance it with the truck.
Knowing that the Vehicle will make the choice it did, makes the voluntary occupants or the higher authority guilty of manslaughter. Yes or no?
The Manufacturer having designed and marketed the Vehicle with this feature also bears a heavy responsibility. Yes or no?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppabillytea

Thanks Mick.

In the event that a Vehicle has no driver the Vehicle becomes the Nominal Driver. Yes or no?
The Vehicle then, must assume the moral, ethical and legal imperatives that are placed on a Human Driver. Yes or no?
The occupants of the Vehicle have either entered it voluntarily or have been put in it by a higher authority. Yes or no?
The Vehicle is then directed to undertake a journey, either by the occupants or a higher authority. Yes or no?
During the journey the vehicle is forced to avoid a runaway truck in order to save its occupants. Unfortunately the only path available is through a group of bystanders in a park 10 Meters from the road who are all killed.
The Vehicle had no choice but to do what it was programmed to do. It could have been programmed to spare the bystanders and chance it with the truck.
Knowing that the Vehicle will make the choice it did, makes the voluntary occupants or the higher authority guilty of manslaughter. Yes or no?
The Manufacturer having designed and marketed the Vehicle with this feature also bears a heavy responsibility. Yes or no?

---

All good questions to be argued in court.

Of course, the driverless truck careering into the autonomous car was programmed to take out the car rather than the pedestrians.

Oh, and the accident was caused by a paper mache roo someone left in the middle of the road.

Hi,
Perhaps the vehicle with the software algorithm providing greater protective factor for its occupants should contribute a higher insurance premium to the common pool?
Cheers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mick_Marsh

All good questions to be argued in court.

Of course, the driverless truck careering into the autonomous car was programmed to take out the car rather than the pedestrians.

Oh, and the accident was caused by a paper mache roo someone left in the middle of the road.

---

Oh Mick, they are all court arguments...

But I have a solution for both arguments, autonomous vehicles on a track, like tram/train tracks... Not on roads...

The reason;
An individual can be taken to court and found responsible for there actions...
An Autonomous vehicle is the product of research and production, no individual responsible thus no responsibility for there actions...
The idea of taking a manufacturer or the developer to court is ludicrous as there is no individual to be found responsible...

If you disagree, then think about James Hardy and Asbestosis... Not hard to find an example of no responsibility or avoiding such...

I wouldn't get on an autonomous plane unless there was a backup pilot. Just saying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wraithe

Oh Mick, they are all court arguments...

But I have a solution for both arguments, autonomous vehicles on a track, like tram/train tracks... Not on roads...

The reason;
An individual can be taken to court and found responsible for there actions...
An Autonomous vehicle is the product of research and production, no individual responsible thus no responsibility for there actions...
The idea of taking a manufacturer or the developer to court is ludicrous as there is no individual to be found responsible...

If you disagree, then think about James Hardy and Asbestosis... Not hard to find an example of no responsibility or avoiding such...

---

1. I'd like to see you sue an unlicenced, unregistered druggie and get any money out of him.

2. Big companies get sued all the time, if one vehicle fails there's a high likelihood of others failing. Lucrative fields of work for class action lawyers. Think VW for starters. Think Takata.

3. But the poor victim in all current and future accident scenarios will of course receive 2/10ths of eff all, that is a given. That's except for some primitive satisfaction of knowing that their injury has been revenged on a supposedly "guilty" individual. I'm sure that helps the healing process a lot. :bat:

I suppose my last sentence in post 192, should have been: The government which allowed this vehicle to be programmed to save it's occupants to the detriment of others has failed and also bears a heavy responsibility.

Very interesting conversation going on here and I'm guessing the legal eagles all over the world are debating these and many more topics when it comes to legislating autonomous vehicles. Apart from India of course because they've already sorted the issue by banning them entirely.

Companies are more likely to have money than individuals and so are more likely to be sued.