What this article misses about ethical decision making for autonomous vehicles is that there doesn’t need to be only one right answer to ethical dilemas.
Currently human drivers make different decisions when faved with similar ethical dilemas. For example, hit a wall kill car occupants or hit and kill pedestrians. Different people react differently in that situation and there are consequences both moral and legal. Autonomous cars don’t need to have the perfect solution before we put them on the road. Users or owners just need to be held accountable in the same way they are now.
Should Your Driverless Car Hit a Pedestrian to Save Your Life? http://nyti.ms/28T0JAR
An exhaustive look at the changes that driverless cars (automated vehicles) could bring to our lives.
A lot of the what ifs are a little a head of their time. Obviously entrenched interests will fight against the change to AV’s tooth and nail. I think widescale demonstrations and purpose built automated systems such as driverless downtowns or AV lanes on the highway will put many of the concerns to rest.
Articles about the inadequacy of human drivers are getting confused for articles about driverless cars.
It seems we are approaching an inflection point where we need to change the terminology for automated vehicles to avoid confusing the conversation.
We’re not talking about the problems of cars without drivers. We’re talking about the benefits of vehicles not subject to human imperfections.
There is a convergence between art and science going on in London. The type that architects are particularly adept seeing.
They are looking at how machines see the world through scanning equipment to understand better what problems these machines will have in perceiving the real world.
This is going to have a big effect on the long-term success for driverless cars.
The Dream Life of Driverless Cars http://nyti.ms/1kMhr5u
Federal guidance on all types of data security is needed. Starting at the start with security far cars and other vehicle related data would be a great start.
Regulators Should Develop Rules to Protect Cars From Hackers http://nyti.ms/1Mcvdbw
Not quite NobodyisDrivingtheCar, but we’re getting there. Its more like SombodyElseisDrivingtheCar, or HALisDrivingtheCar. The article points out that transportation is changing more now than it has in the last 75 years. Between increases in ride shares and semi autonomous cars we’re seeing vast improvement.
Unfortunately, liberal guilt requires the article to point out that not everyone may benefit equally from these advances. Why this is necessary is beyond me. The idea that transportation advances need to be equitably distributed is ludicrous. No one complains that the rich have had access to private jets and limousines for decades. Bring rideshare apps and Leap luxury buses to the bougie masses and suddenly the inequality is intolerable.
Tipping Point in Transit http://nyti.ms/1S5JRTD
A step in the right direction. Take drivers out of the equation for driverless cars.
Driverless taxis. Padding on the front in case a pedestrian gets hit. Cars driving in trains at 100 miles an hour.
The dream gets a little closer. Once this no driver controls technology is shown to be safe the next step is to designate more and larger areas for this technology to be used exclusively. Mixing it in with human controlled cars is a recipe for lawsuits. Following larger implementations of driverless areas I’d like to see lanes such HOV lanes sequestered on highways for exclusive use of high speed driverless trains of cars ferrying commuters.
NYTimes: Google’s Next Phase in Driverless Cars: No Steering Wheel or Brake Pedals