Until the car gets some kind of software patch that kills everyone.

It's all fun and games until the navigation systems go down, or you need to drive someone to the hospital, or there is an emergency somewhere, etc.

These can all be programmed to have responses.

It's both a blessing and curse. Can do stuff while riding, could even sleep alone, roads may work smoothly, less accidents, but have to know where to go beforehand, can't speed up or pass someone, can't actually feel in control, can't have old cars with it yet, or (like the black person who totaled my truck) blame the accident on the other person and make money by suing.

Would never need to speed up to pass, the car would do it for you. And if every car was automated, there would be virtually no traffic.

ye, so imagine all those accidents reduced down to when some idiot run outs into the middle
of a road.

Don't listen to him. There's a system that was shown off recently about how self-driving cars drive in unmapped areas. They're extremely good at locating and identifying potential hazards and traffic laws.

And then we get to open the massive can of worms that is the ethics of self-driving cars:

www.technologyreview.com/view/542626/why-self-driving-cars-must-be-programmed-to-kill/

This experiment is flawed. Autonomous cars have sensors and scanners. Autonomous cars always obey the speed limit. Autonomous cars can break a hell of a lot faster than human drivers since it's perfect in it's science. An autonomous car would have seen the humans on the road and slowed long before their's even a chance for failure. An autonomous car can see itself in a grid, the scanners project the surroundings of the car on the grid. Autonomous cars can perfectly weave through tight spaces.

Humans won't die from getting hit by a car unless that car plows through them or they smack their head on the floor. An autocar would be well on the way to stopping, making it difficult to achieve fatal speed.


There is an easy assumption that car manufacturers will choose to spare the owner rather than the masses. It's the same reason that buildings don't have the number 13. They don't want to lose the sale of superstitious people, and the non-super people couldn't care less.

IF I CHOOSE THE CAR, I EXPECT THE CAR TO CHOOSE ME! It's my money that the company took, not theirs.

Not to mention, if a car was programmed to steer itself into the wall, it would know the time of impending impact. It would position the seat and activate the airbags so that the occupant survives easily.

another issue is insurance and liability FOR any accidents that occur. Why would you choose to give away your agency in the event of a possible accident, only for you to have to pay for any damages your AUTONOMOUS car caused?

man i hate ethics.
everything seems to come down to ethics now a days...
look at those examples, all of them are because there are humans in a place they should not
be, human error man.

Or if whatever provides the car with navigation ***** up; you cannot rule that out, failure is always an option.

"perfect system of self driving"
self driving cars aren't perfect, if they were though than navigation **** up wouldn't be a problem.
The main problem with self driving cars are ethics. should it kill one human and save three or kill one human and save one.

**** , forgot to log in

>implying thumbs have any value or meaning
>implying

yeah, I just don't like anons. always makes me think someone was too cowardly to log in or is samefagging. I guess since both comments are at 0 it doesn't matter either way

Watched the video, previous statement redacted.

I made a mistake, I meant kill 1 save 3 or kill 3 save 1
but still the point stands, even my former comment: whose life is more important? who is to blame in a crash?

I think this video sums it up nicely.