• Neato@ttrpg.network
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    Why would you hold self-driving cars to a standard that we don’t hold drivers? If you are a driver and realize you are about to harm a pedestrian, there is no circumstance when the law suggests you ram a car into a building or pole instead of the pedestrian. Your insurance would rather you hit the pedestrian, usually. Because in an animal strike, hitting the animal is comprehensive (in America) and swerving to hit a fence is collision. You can’t be at fault for comprehensive. A pedestrian is a different mater and not comprehensive, but they’d rather you mitigate liability, and then mitigate cost. And there’s a chance the pedestrian was at fault, at least partially. The building/pole can’t be.

    But all of this is a moot point. Self-driving cars will NEVER be programmed to harm the driver before an outside person. Simply for the fact no one will ever buy or ride in a car that chooses to kill the passenger over others. No one will ride in the Suicide Car.

    • VeganPizza69 Ⓥ@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      Why would you hold self-driving cars to a standard that we don’t hold drivers?

      I don’t. Modern cars are way too safe for drivers. It’s been a deeply tragic decision to allow these exo-suit wearing assholes to roam the land.

    • massive_bereavement@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      4 months ago

      Exactly. I too think that human driven cars should also have a self destructing mechanism.

      However we, as a society, should agree to only use said mechanism for good.