Would you buy a car that programmed to kill you if some dumbass

File: ethical dilemma.jpg (30KB, 460x454px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 460x454px

So we really can't move away from this kind of ethical dilemma?

The car should stop

>>1074422
This. It does what a human does, except it travels at or below the speed limit as appropriate for the conditions, and has advance knowledge of potential crossings and lights. In the rare situation where somebody else does something unexpected in front of the vehical, it does the same as a driver: tries to stop and hits them.

The correct solution is ramming the people and then gassing the driver thru the AC system. Only way to solve the dilemma desu

>>1074410
it'll stop because its not being controlled by a drunk cager

>>1074410
it's stupid to program "moral" decisions into a vehicle or robot. if the car can't stop it should slow down as much as possible but stay on course. that's the only sane way. the automatic vehicles must be before everything else predictable. if you jump in front of it you will know it hits you simple as that.

File: jpg.jpg (34KB, 359x524px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 359x524px

fix'd

:o)

>>1074443
By reading body language you can anticipate pedestrian behavior before they act. Most drivers willfully ignore these clues because they are selfishly biased towards not stopping. Its called driving defensively, which most people don't do, but would be an integral part of self driving AI.

Around here as a pedestrian if you are at a curb checking for traffic before stepping off, about 25% of drivers won't stop even if they had adequate distance to do so. The best technique is to just step off the curb when drivers are a reasonable stopping distance away, but be ready for the rare case where one decides to blow past anyway.

One thing you have to watch for is assholes that swerve into the curb parking lane at full speed to pass the stopping vehicles. Those dipshits assume the lead vehicle is making a left turn and are willing to gamble other people's lives on it.

>>1074456
dunno, i think the trafic code is generally shit. it should be better optimized to give the higher mass the right of way.a car stop to let a pedestrian pass before it? the pedestrian requires almost zero energy to stop and wait a second the car needs to decelerate and then accelerate 2 tons. it is a fucking waste in every way and damaging to the economy.

a tram has to give way to a car or pedestrian in any situation?? the fuck nigger why? are you fucking stupid? yeah stuff like that...

the cars don't stop because the pedestrian might as well just pass behind them than before them it however mechanically damages the car to let him pass before him.

i drive car ride bike and of course go on foot. so i pretty much know the stuff from all perspectives. and the way i see it is the traffic code is utter shit and outdated as hell. and of course most people are uncooperative assholes.

>>1074456
btw if the car can stop it's not a moral decision in the sense the study tries to go about it.

it's a moral decision about killing someone that crosses the red light as a sanction or not. and i guess we made that choice a long time ago not to.

it would be very bad if cars predictably killed their drivers because a pregnant looking young girl jumps in front of them. that would be one way to assassinate people.

>>1074466

>that would be one way to assassinate people.

Or get killed, because self driving cars still adhere to the laws of physics. They can only stop and turn as fast as they can.

If the pregnant ninja assassin jumps out too soon the car will safely come to a halt. It does that need to decide. If she ninja cartwheels out too late, it's curtains for her. That line is a bit finer than most non assassins like to believe.

>>1074472
i'm just saying the car shouldn't even try and if everyone knows that there will be no pregnant ninja assassins.
better that way.

>>1074474

Good idea in my mind.

>choose to travel at high speeds
>not prepared to pay the price of F=MA

Pure entitlement. High speeds = your risk.

>>1074482
what i don't understand is why there is no external airbags on more expensive cars already set off by proximity alert? i mean high speed collisions are a bitch but every meter of non elastic deformation counts shittons.

>>1074433
>>1074422
iirc this specific set of examples was if the car had no brakes or something

also the correct decision is to keep going, the people should pay attention. Self-driving cars are just an agent of survival of the fittest and the world would be a better place if the people stupid enough to walk out into traffic on a "no walk" signal were just run over

>all self driving cars will continuously record video
>to protect the sanctity of our car centric culture all pedestrians will be required to register for walking licenses and display a number plate so they can be reported to the authorities for interfering with the operation of an automated motor vehicle.

>>1074484
>but every meter of non elastic deformation counts shittons.

Well meter is a lot.

I think if your cage harms another person you should be executed. If you kill someone, you should get the blood eagle.

>>1074484
Volvo has them and Mercedes has pyrotechnic hood latches that pop the hood up for a larger crumple zone between the hood and the engine/body


No matter how advanced self driving cars get there will not be any "morality" programmed into them, they will act on the first and most urgent information they have available and deal with it in a way that adheres to road laws. Coming up with some ridiculous scenario that has never happened that can somehow stump a self driving car but not the average human is impossible, even primitive self driving cars that we have now are already better drivers than humans.

>>1074447
underrated post

>>1074410

The autonomous vehicle would be aware of the crossing and pedestrians and be doing an appropriate speed. Only a dumbfuck cager would be speeding towards a crossing and deserves to die.

Would you drive a car that has a 1/10000 chance of killing you every year?

>>1074410
OP, let me re-state and simplify your original post, so we can have a REAL conversation about this, instead of the usual troll/meme garbage:

>Would you, EVER, own or even ride in a so-called 'driverless car'?

..and my answer is FUCK NO, I'd rather WALK everywhere than set foot in some deathtrap run by some half-assed fake 'AI' programmed by some fucking HACK over at Google who will NEVER take responsibility for me or anyone else getting injured or killed by the piece of shit.

FACT: There is NO SUCH THING as 'Artificial Intelligence', not yet, maybe never. Go talk to some neuroscientists; what they'll tell you is that we have no idea at all yet how human cognition and human consciousness works -- therefore it is IMPOSSIBLE for us to build machines that actually 'think'.

FACT: 'Deep learning algorithms', 'expert systems', and the like are what the media have ERRONEOUSLY hyped as so-called 'AI'. Furthermore companies like Google have invested millions and millions of dollars into this nonsense, and they'll latch onto ANY media hype they can to get investors to give them MORE money, or at least help them recoup their expenses.

FACT: The general public has bought into the media hype so thoroughly that they actually believe that so-called 'self driving cars' CAN THINK. I half expect that they believe that their magical 'self driving car' will have a nice chat with them on their way to work; THAT ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN.

FACT: So-called 'self driving cars' are nowhere NEAR being ready for general deployment, regardless of what the media is trying to sell you. Auto manufacturers are making it seem on the surface that they're close, but in fact all they're doing is hedging their bets so IF the technology is something that can be sold, they won't be left behind. IT IS ALL STILL JUST HYPE.

More below!

>>1074436
/thread: maximum carnage is always the answer

>>1074541
Continued from above.

FACT: All those reCaptchas you're solving that show you things you'd see WHILE DRIVING A CAR? You're helping Google (FOR FREE!) 'train' their half-assed bullshit fake 'AI' to pretend it can operate a motor vehicle.

FACT: Self-driving cars will be even more insecure than current normal cars and will be HACKED regularly -- including by POLICE, who will be able to make your car stop, go where THEY want it to, and you will have NO say in the matter. Oh and by the way criminals will be able to use this ability to hijack your car, too -- or just get you killed.

..and finally:
FACT: The way human beings are able to use tools, is the tool becomes like part of your body -- literally so far as your brain is concerned. THAT CAN'T HAPPEN with a so-called 'self driving car' that doesn't even have controls for you to use: you're strapped into a seat in a box on wheels that you CANNOT CONTROL in any substantial way. If something goes wrong, the TERROR you will feel will be worse than any fear you've ever felt your entire life because you will not be able to do ANYTHING about it.

Your hands are zip-tied behind your back, your feet are zip-tied together, and duct tape is put over your mouth so you can't talk. Now someone you don't know straps you into a car, gets in the drivers seat, and goes careening down a freeway at over 100 miles per hour, just barely missing colliding with other cars again and again, and when you think you can't take any more, he veers over into the oncoming traffic and starts playing chicken with the oncoming cars. You're completely restrained and can't stop him. You can't even SCREAM. THAT is what being in a so-called self-driving car will be like if something goes wrong with it. THAT is why I'll never ride in one or own one. THAT is why the whole idea is going to fall flat on it's face UNLESS there are always controls for a human driver and you can TURN OFF the 'self driving' part at any time and drive normally.

>>1074541
>>1074545
where did u copypaste this hysterical wall of text from

>>1074545
I take it you avoid trains, aeroplanes, buses, and being driven by other people, too.

>>1074530
yes

>>1074550
Great, here's your driving license.

Manual cuckcages will be off the road within a decade. Death to cagecucks.

Self driving cars will be the end of privacy. Continuously recording video, chances are you will be captured on video at practically all times when you are in public. Manual drivers will have their shitty driving documented and perhaps even automatically reported to the police if their driving is deemed erratic enough.

>>1074482
>Going 60 in a 35
>It's dark outside
>Suddenly a pedistrian appears in a dark cross walk
>Slam on my breaks
>They narrowly avoid getting hit
>Think about how if I had hit them chances are I would have been arrested and I would basically lose all my shit
>Don't speed anymore

I couldn't give two fucks if I hit and killed someone it's the consequences and the potential loss of the items I love that keep me in check now.

>>1074541
>>1074545
People who post angry ranting posts/blogs/articles with the word "fact" in all capitals like you have have serious mental health issues.

>>1074485
>also the correct decision is to keep going
yes but the car should have an alarm both visual and audio if the break system has a failure people should know it.

>>1074499
for an external airbag? not that much you can inflate them pretty big. 1-2 meters depending on vehicle mass.

>>1074485
>the people should pay attention
A good idea if you want to discuss something SERIOUSLY is to always assume the best possible version of the question at hand, or even of your opponent's arguments. So in this case just assume that the people have been paying attention but the car is too fast and nobody is at fault, the situation was entirely caused by external circumstances and is completely unavoidable. What should the car do then?

http://lesswrong.com/lw/85h/better_disagreement/

>>1074410
no, because a product i buy should protect me before anybody else.

that being said, fuck cars and especially fuck self driving cars.

>>1074643
>the car is too fast
>nobody is at fault

Pick one.

>>1074579
>Manual drivers will have their shitty driving documented

Good. May they burn.

>>1074668
it's honestly a more interesting dilemma if the car deems you may or even have a good chance to survive the crash to the concrete slab but the pedestrians will not survive it if it doesn't steer into it.

>>1074643
>the people have been paying attention but the car is too fast and nobody is at fault
If you're approaching a ped crossing at such speed that you can not stop in time - guess who's at fault? Self driving or not, it is the vehicle operator.

>>1074698
that's bullshit nobody is ever slowing down when there are operating lights at the intersection. you don't have to assume a dumbass will ignore his red light.

>>1074700

This is why retards should not drive.

>>1074579
>spend 40-60% of your life on a PC or smartphone, where everything is recorded
>"oh no, they'll record my 1 hour commute, the end of privacy is nigh."

??? ???

>>1074700

Anyone who drives like you say is a shit driver.

Old people and retards are the primary causes of road accidents, not moral decisions.

>>1074643
>people HAVE been paying attention
>walk out into traffic during a "don't walk" signal

pick one an only one, friend

File: Smart-Car-picture.jpg (133KB, 1000x750px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 1000x750px

>>1074464
Everyone is equal despite their mode of transport. Otherwise someone in a Hummer will assume right of way before a Smart car. Everyone will start driving around in Tanks. Your argument is stupid.

pic related

>>1074819
>>1074767
two fucking ignorant ass detected. people don't slow down at green light ever. they don't have any obligation to do so for starters and it would really mess up the traffic and screwed over everyone if they did.
>>1074831
>Everyone is equal despite their mode of transport.
like i said it's crap btw a hummer is just a car same as a fiat punto. but a truck should have priority to both a tram by all means priority from anything. you don't have to juggle exact kilograms.

we have these categories already motorbikes, cars, trucks under 3.5 tonnes, and above, trucks with trailers, and trains. and i was thinking more in the way of organizing traffic to count to the energy efficiency and agility of vehicles. it would make a hell of a lot more sense. that a car has to give way to a biker or pedestrian anywhere (sans traffic lights) is an absolute joke. that a tram has to give way to anything is the other. to differentiate between trucks and buses and normal cars is an other question that has too many variables. it would be best to organize traffic that way that these vehicles rarely meet.

>>1074969
I hope you end up in a gas chamber in the inevitable ideology war.

>>1074969
>it would be best to organize traffic that way that these vehicles rarely meet.

A fine idea. But there's the crazy hobo factor. Jay-walkers everywhere and the police under instructions not to harass them (what cop wants to get bitten by AIDS infected heroin addict anyway).

You either slow down when you see one or install bull bars on your truck to keep them from going through your radiator.

>>1074410
>not programming it to jump a minimum 7 feet in the event of an unexpected obstacle
what year is it?

>>1075009
you don't need a crossing for random idiots to get in front of you on the road. people walk across all the time in the middle of nothing. they don't give a fuck and they are not even addicts. that is why i said slowing down at a green is pointless even idiotic it's basically the same as no crossing.

>>1074545
Couldn't have said it better myself senpai

>>1074541
>Deep learning algorithms', 'expert systems', and the like are what the media have ERRONEOUSLY hyped as so-called 'AI'

are people actually confusing statistical models for and actual AI?

>>1074410
this thing is dumb for many reasons

1: you're assuming these situations come up, the idea of driverless cars is this DOESNT happen, its not gonna haul ass right infront of an intersection
>but what if it fails?
what if your entire car explodes. what if you choke on your breakfast. If it fucks up that bad what makes you think its gonna be able to make a decision like this

2: this isnt a new problem
humans have to do this too. we ourselves have to make these decisions. there was a school bus that ran off a giant cliff and killed almost everyone in it, because it turned to avoid 1 kid on a bike. shit happens. self driving cars will be better at making these decisions than we will, if they ever have to.

>>1074579
we're celebrating having a 24 hour corporate sensor network on every road in the country. Its really the end of privacy in public spaces.

I'd be happy if some kind of jamming culture comes out of this though. People need to actively fight for their right not to be tracked and monitored. If self driving cars are a casualty, fine

>>1074643
I'm embarrassed that anyone links to lesswrong

File: news-082113b-lg[1].jpg (219KB, 1280x848px) Image search: [Google]

219KB, 1280x848px

>>1074464
>>1074969

>HONK HONK
>OUT OF MY WAY LIGHTWEIGHTS

>>1075305
Dude, you have a tracking device in your pocket. You keep it next to your bed when you go to sleep, you take it with you to the toilet and often, you type into it to let "them" know what you're thinking...

File: Jahre_Viking-0146.jpg (81KB, 900x494px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 900x494px

>>1074831
>this should give way to a kayak

>>1075344
This is a fine example of a straw man if I've ever seen one.

>>1074831
>Everyone will start driving around in Tanks.

OK.

>>1075350
>This is a fine example of a straw man if I've ever seen one.
Looks like a ship to me.

File: abc.jpg (5KB, 177x64px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 177x64px

>>1075498
Looks like a ship? I don't know whether I should refer you to an ophthalmologist or a psychiatrist.

>>1074456
>Around here as a pedestrian if you are at a curb checking for traffic before stepping off, about 25% of drivers won't stop
>2017
>being a pussy
Just grow a pair and step out in front of them while making eye contact. No one's going to intentionally hit you, unless they're a psychopath, at which point they're just as likely to slaughter you in your sleep and rape your rotting corpse, so who cares. Unless you're blind it's very easy to tell if they're paying attention or not, and if they aren't obviously don't step in front of them. I bet you ride your bike in the gutter and not in the middle of the lane like a nicely groomed little cuck, too.

>>1074464
>might is right
I bet you think toilets are a waste of money too and we should all just take our shits in the streets.

>>1075309
>hurr we're underfunded give us more money we need it

File: abc.jpg (48KB, 846x468px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 846x468px

>>1075617
>"if have big thing how can have not money? I know noooot..."

File: 1494242208422.png (472KB, 409x409px) Image search: [Google]

472KB, 409x409px

>see self driving car
>jump in front if it
>kills the driver

Nothing personell kid

>>1075614
>might is right
where did you get that? i didn't say the muscle cars with the bigger horsepower should have the right of way always. i said it makes no sense that a bigger mass should de-accelerate and re-accelerate to give way to the smaller whenever it's possible to avoid it. it's not economic and outright damaging to the ecosystem.

>>1075682
It's about making it convenient to cycle/walk and inconvenient to drive. By discouraging driving and encouraging alternative modes of transportation we make a far greater difference than continuing to encourage and placate drivers by saving them a few stops along the way.
The cost of the extra acceleration is immaterial in the bigger picture.

>>1075683
>The cost of the extra acceleration is immaterial in the bigger picture.
i disagree, there will never be less drivers because they have to push the gas and break that's moronic to assume. they will be more impatient more aggressive and do more pollution is all you can achieve. hopefully electric cars will in a decade or two will solve this problem. they can regain the energy when breaking and less prone to exfume toxins. the mechanical wear issues will still remain somewhat tho.

the only way i see for people to opt to bikes instead of cars if you made air conditioned tunnels for bikers that protect them from snow and rain and uv radiation and heat and cold and you also solve the stealing issues, because you can't fucking put down a good bike for a minute without someone lifting it. i can't even imagine going to work by bike instead of a car. it would suck miles of ass.

>>1075685
>the only way i see for people to opt to bikes instead of cars if you made air conditioned tunnels for bikers
Yes, well, or you can do the little cheap things first, like giving them priority over car drivers. You don't have to like it, but it is a proven fact that constantly stopping and starting is something that lowers cyclist uptake. Reducing that is removing an obstacle on the path to transition from ca driving to sustainable, livable modes of transportation. All else is you rationalising your sense of driver entitlement.

>>1074410
>Would you buy a car that programmed to kill you
I don't see how this is different than regular cars.

>>1075685
>i can't even imagine going to work by bike instead of a car. it would suck miles of ass.
the levels of indoctrination.

what about your thousand generations of ancestors who walked or rode horses everywhere? do you think they thought it "sucked miles of ass?" you're a soft, weak fag.

>>1075722
>All else is you rationalising your sense of driver entitlement.
you are forgetting i also bike and somehow magically cars don't bother me when i do and i rarely stop for them.
it's really the bikers who are obnoxious and entitled in my experience. if i didn't know how easy it is to bike unobtrusively and safely i might even consider your opinion.

>>1075824
>the levels of indoctrination.
it's called life experience. i spent half my life on a bike and yeah it's inconvenient dangerous and sucks ass in comparison to cars. sure enough i hate traffic jams and when i can't find a fucking parking place those parts suck. but you are more than compensated by the other factors.

>>1076016
>>1076018
>i cant imagine what its like cycling
>hurr-durr ive biked all my life
Fuck off already.

>>1076020
>i cant imagine what its like cycling
to work every day
faggot where did you learn to read?
i bike frequently altho only mbt stuff now, but i used to bike everywhere when younger (as i was poor as fuck)

>>1076021
>i bike frequently altho only mbt stuff now, but i used to bike everywhere when younger (as i was poor as fuck)

ah, it all makes sense now. you need a car because bikes for transportation=poor and you need everyone to know that you aren't poor. all your posting is basically you saying "I'm NOT POOR!"

insecure as fuck, and everything I said about indoctrination not only stands, but is multiplied x2.

>>1076061
now, it's simply i can now afford the superior mode of transportation. you are trying too hard.

>>1075305
>Its really the end of privacy in public spaces.
If you walk around in NYC apparently on average you are on at least 40 CCTVs. It's also likely your on someone's dashboard camera too (especially in the UK where there is a high usage rate). You can't always expect privacy in public anymore given the current climate. People might be mad though if Teslas record them monologuing or singing in their car (everyone does it) but I don't know if they do that. As another person said, you already give up most privacy if you own a phone. Many apps will know, to some extent, what you're doing, even without permission to access specific phone features.

I'll add that large scale tracking for traffic is okay as it can help transit/traffic systems operate better. The key here is its anonymous aggregates and they just use it for modelling their networks.

>>1076082
you link your smartphone to your real identity?

>>1074410
This """study""" really rubs my rims. Why should they care what the internet thinks about this? Why would their voice matter? The point is advertisement and normalisation. There are real problems happening right now, in real life, but instead they make up "problems" and "mental exercises" for us to ponder and justify their careers and perpetuate consumerism.

Fuck your car, get on a train. The road shouldn't be designed so that pedestrians are crossing a road where cars are moving too fast to stop or considerably slow down within 3 lengths anyway.

>>1076180
it's fucking bullshit cars should have as much moral decision making as a vacuum cleaner.

like i said before the only interesting question is should a car risk your life if it can avoid killing people and you have a good chance of survival? that's a hard nut to crack. for many it would be obvious their car should try to save their life and ensure their safety as a priority, for others the possibility of saving everyone is too good to pass up.

maybe it will be a driver setting.

>>1074410
no. bicyclists and joggers deserve to be run over.
besides, i've never met one that wasn't an insufferable cunt

>>1074433
>it does what a human does

but what i do when someone jaywalks in front of me is drop a gear and honk

>>1076268
my favorite kind is the ninja:
>dressed in all black
>music blasting from ear pieces
>running or biking at night
>crossing the streets without looking left or right

>>1074464
Because you're sitting on a climate controlled couch with a stereo system that's likely better than the one in your house and I'm fucking OUTSIDE

>>1076308
you fucking inside or outside is not my business cuck. it's yours and your bulls jamals.

File: tempertantrum3.jpg (379KB, 600x800px) Image search: [Google]

379KB, 600x800px

>>1076313
>BUT I WANNA BE A DICK, MOMMY!!!!

>>1076313
mommy, I want car!

I WANT IT!

car is MIIIIIIIIINE!!!

>>1074510
>even primitive self driving cars that we have now are already better drivers than humans.
This is the fundamental point right here. Once basically every car on the road is driven by AI, traffic collisions will be virtually unheard of, but even so anti-science nuts will try to raise your scare with some nonsense about a car that chose to kill a baby instead of an old man or some bullshit.

>>1074579
This is a huge concern and the US in particular is miles behind Europe, who has actual laws about anonymizing the data and deleting it after a certain period of time (laws that aren't nearly enough by the way).

It's not necessarily the end of privacy though, there are hard working crypto scientists working on solutions.

>>1074693
Pretty far fetched that it could make such a decision in real time.

Is it reading some sort of RFID tag off of the pedestrians and looking up their medical history?

>>1076403
frankly it's enough if it recognizes them for humans and also knows it's speed and the survival statistics for collision at the upper limit of speed that remains at the end of the emergency braking before impact. it's calling a function literally takes 2ms the output is 2 probability of loss of lives. say in decision branch A you get 85% for 5 people that's 4.25 and on branch B you get 2% for 1 people 0.02. let's say there is a setting for the maximum amount of risk the car is allowed to take if it's set to 0 then it will hit the pedestrians with the remaining of speed if it's set to 0.05 then it will steer into the wall.

this level of computation doesn't likely take a whole millisecond for a smartphone. i hope car systems will make it under way less.

>>1076403
That's not what he means. He means that a car hitting a pedestrian is usually more fatal for the pedestrian than a car hitting a wall is for the driver. Peds don't get airbags or seatbelts.

>>1074700
Almost everybody is an unsafe driver and no amount of telling people who are learning this seems to change things.

>>1075303
>we ourselves have to make these decisions.
No we don't. He didn't decide he'd rather throw his bus off a cliff than hit a kid he just reacted to said kid and unfortunately couldn't then react to the fact he's about to go over said cliff.

We react in these situations, there's no time for moral decision making. Hence why all these moral dilemmas are complete wank with no informative benefit.

File: FB_IMG_14917992978450835.jpg (94KB, 480x483px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 480x483px

It's just a matter of numbers, i can easily die on some accident caused by my human reflexes or from hitting a drunk driver. On the other hand, tesla has few cases of collision and even fewer number of caused deaths, the same way i feel safer at a commercial plane, i would love to own a self driving car

>>1074447
>fix'd
Not if it drifts!

>>1076424
interestingly the only study that i find concludes that at lower speeds the pedestrians are at less risk of fatality than the car driver if it hits a concrete wall. humans are tough as shit.

>>1076424
>>1076420
If I'm going 15 mph and love tap an 90 year old with a hip that's hanging on for dear life, it could well kill them, but an able bodied human would probably just be annoyed. Is the car's risk analysis going to take this shit into account?

>>1075305
>he said posting on 4chan from his phone or PC through an Internet connection either supported from continuous payment of bills in a credit based system or leeched off of in a public setting where he's likely already known and buying things on credit/debit

>>1076554
>on Windows 10, where his every keystroke is logged and sent to to data mines that can de-anonymize him from his typing habits on any computer he uses

>>1074410
Are the brakes not working in this scenario?

>>1076539
>Is the car's risk analysis going to take this shit into account?
maybe in time. until that it will be just based on mass aggregate data.

>>1076577
or the cars speed is just too great to completely stop. roads where the sides are blocked are usually 90-100km/h min. if a pedestrian starts walking across a red 20 meters from you you will not be able to stop not even a self driving car will be able to with it's superior reaction time.

>>1075685
>hopefully electric cars will in a decade or two will solve this problem.
today i had the pleasure to test drive an electric car. what i gathered from the experience is that: gas guzzlers should be banned as quickly as possible!

>>1077524
the only problem i see is they are silent like cats. they make almost no sound even at max accel. manufacturers should put some external sound system and wattage regulated sound modulators on them by default. yeah of course the user could select what type of sound the car should make if he wants but it should make some noise. it's creepy as fuck how they can sneak up on you.

File: sleep dopesmoker.jpg (64KB, 560x560px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 560x560px

>>1077533
oh they'll hear me coming alright

>>1074410

Brake as much as possible.

>>1074410
In China, even thought you have completely followed traffic rules and have taken steps to try to avoid it happening and it is those pedestrian who are not following the traffic sign and suddenly rush out of the road, if your car have caused death of pedestrian it would still be part of your responsibility to compensate to those victim. Considering the responsibility of having a car that caused death of three, you might as well crash and kill yourself as you will be death anyway

File: 1491399980514.jpg (21KB, 570x570px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 570x570px

>>1074410
It's the law that you can't cross on the red light, if you walk right under the speeding car, whether it's a programmed one with a brake failure (which is an absurd scenario) or a human controlled one, they will likely fucking kill you like it or not, with the second one having a chance of killing themselves as well because of the reaction time and potential veering off the road.

If those machines would obey the road laws, beside some mechanical error (that could be prevented with a well thought out response system) there would be no possibility of any road death. It's literally humans being fucking stupid that causes any of this. But anyone would quickly learn that the risk of crossing at the red light has greatly increased since machine isn't going to give a shit about your dumb ass breaking the law.

>>1078480
Do the sunglasses signify that you're blind? The red light is for the cage, not for the humans.

>>1078489
That makes the whole problem even more absurd. Programmed cars should never allow whis situation to happen. Brakes don't magically dissapear in a second, even damaged system would have some braking power left, the system should be aware of that as problem graduatelly occurs and never reach the speeds from which it can't easily slow down. If the system would miss the brakes failure completely, no point discussing this as well as it would just drive straight through people. If that's the case, it's the fault of person who allowed the car for road use.

Such morality problems don't even have to be considered in programming, because if the whole thing works as it should, they won't ever occur.

File: Terror-Stopper-PAS-68-Rising-Bollards-003.jpg (122KB, 415x250px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 415x250px

>>1078497
So, the point stands, the fault would be human stupidity, but in this case of a worker who approved the car maintenance.

On another note, there should be much more undeground or bridge crossings for pedestrians. They don't disrupt the road traffic and are literally 100% safe.

Or just to fuck with cagers, make those rise before every dangerous crossing. That would be a lot of fun to see.

>>1074688
this

>>1078489
no cars don't have red-green traffic lights only pedestrians do. cars have red-yellow yellow blinking or red-yellow-green lamps.

please do not ever attempt to participate in traffic!

when approaching a crosswalk n a barrier like that you should be going pretty slowly. slowly enough to apply the brakes to great effect

>>1078695
you can substitute the barrier with a truck coming towards you or a car trying to park. you will slow down for every car that comes up front at a green light for you? do you even have a drivers license?

File: Irreversible-rape-scene.jpg (91KB, 1916x852px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 1916x852px

>>1078498
>underground crossing
>100% safe

>>1078776
they are chock full of cameras nowadays.

>>1078498
>Or just to fuck with cagers
one of my friend broke his collarbone on these. he biked after the bus that got through and looked to the side these things rise up and he is flying.

>>1074464
>cager mentality

Driving a car [legally] in public spaces = privilege
Walking in public spaces = right

If you want to drive in public spaces where pedestrian traffic is also allowed, you and your cagerfag friends need to let off that tiny pedal for a moment.

>>1078808
uhm hate to break it to you but you need help you are mentally ill sorry. your view of the world is so far detached from reality that feminists look decidedly sane in comparison.

>>1078792

Camera won't stop anal rape

>>1079102
No but they will let people masturbate to your predicament.

>>1079102
sure it does camera guy monitoring calls the cops once you finished and try to run you find yourself in the worst trap imaginable for a rapist cops closing in from all direction.

>>1079147
>implying a rapist cares about anything other than seizing a rape opportunity

>>1079148
most of them do everything they can not to get caught. but most rape happens not in public places like that not even in dark alleys. most rape is committed by someone the woman knows very well.

File: 7_Out_of_10_Rapes 122016.png (774KB, 1200x1116px) Image search: [Google]

774KB, 1200x1116px

>>1079168