Driverless Dilemma

What should the car do?

  • Stop, let the two cyclist hit it. Save the driver(One person).

    Votes: 5 35.7%

  • Drive into the warehouse/tanker. Save the cyclists(Two people)

    Votes: 4 28.6%

  • Other. Elaborate

    Votes: 5 35.7%
  • Total voters
    14
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
classic33

classic33

Leg End Member
A vehicle being driven entirely by software, and carrying one passenger, on their way home from work. Having rounded a corner, whilst travelling uphill, comes across two young cyclist approaching, having passed a petrol tanker. Large warehouse opposite the petrol tanker. Driver of the tanker has seen them, decided to wait until they were passed before moving off. Cyclist are now on the wrong side of the road, owing to passing the tanker. The driverless car has detected the two cyclists approaching, on the wrong side of the road.

In attempting to avoid the two cyclists, it can drive into the warehouse or the tanker, which will kill the occupant of the car. If it stops, the two cyclists will hit it and be killed, but the occupant of the car will be saved.

What should the car do?
 
burntoutbanger

burntoutbanger

Veteran
Location
Devon
Driven around the corner at a speed that enables it to stop in the distance it can see to be clear...
 
B

Brandane

Legendary Member
burntoutbanger said:
Driven around the corner at a speed that enables it to stop in the distance it can see to be clear...
Click to expand...
But .... "if it stops, the two cyclists will hit it and be killed". The cyclists must therefore have been passing the petrol tanker immediately before a blind corner. Why? And why was the tanker stopped there? A highly unlikely situation. But the cyclists shouldn't be on the wrong side of the road approaching a blind corner. What were you saying about being able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear? Applies to cyclists too. In this scenario, their luck has just run out. It's a pair of sorry cyclists IMHO..
 
Last edited:
Shut Up Legs

Shut Up Legs

Down Under Member
Brandane said:
But .... "if it stops, the two cyclists will hit it and be killed". The cyclists must therefore have been passing the petrol tanker immediately before a blind corner. Why? And why was the tanker stopped there? A highly unlikely situation. But the cyclists shouldn't be on the wrong side of the road approaching a blind corner. What were you saying about being able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear? Applies to cyclists too. In this scenario, their luck has just run out. It's a pair of sorry cyclists IMHO..
Click to expand...
Are you sure about that spelling? I wasn't completely sure (and my spelling is generally pretty good), so I did some searching, and the general consensus seems to be that "dilemma" is the correct form.
 
U

ufkacbln

Guest
It is one of the reasons they failed last time

I remember a version from the 70's using sensors to enforce speed / distance in order to make driving safer

Worked perfectly, the sensors allowed the driver to choose their speed, but if you got within the "safe braking distance" the sensors would override

Worked perfectly until the first road trials when they fund that too may drivers saw the safe distance as a gap to fit into.

The car would be travelling at 60 mph, and another would suddenly fill the gap. The new gap dictated a speed of 20 mph so the car would immediataley slow to this speed, causing emergency braking in the traffic behind and a few shunts because of it.

The system only worked if everyone else obeyed the rules.
 
Levo-Lon

Levo-Lon

Guru
Hopefull the car take out the pedant first....
cyclists are in charge of their destiny...the car will just stop asap.

the question should be ,who gets the compensation payout? Are the cyclists insured? Will petrol be more expensive....how many work in the watehouse?

We need more information :whistle:
 
jefmcg

jefmcg

Guru
Location
The dark heart of the former British Empire
Stop. I don't see it's guaranteed that the cyclists will hit the car, or die if they did.
 
PaulB

PaulB

Legendary Member
Location
Colne
The driver reaches over and disables the software, switches back to driving it manually. As the car is now traveling uphill and the tanker is travelling at a particularly slow speed having allowed the cyclists to pass, both vehicles are travelling slowly enough to avoid any collision. Driver deletes software from vehicle vowing never to let anything else dictate his/her driving decisions in future and while doing so, waves to the cyclists wishing them a pleasant ride.

All live happily ever after. Simple!
 
D

Deleted member 26715

Guest
Cunobelin said:
It is one of the reasons they failed last time

I remember a version from the 70's using sensors to enforce speed / distance in order to make driving safer

Worked perfectly, the sensors allowed the driver to choose their speed, but if you got within the "safe braking distance" the sensors would override

Worked perfectly until the first road trials when they fund that too may drivers saw the safe distance as a gap to fit into.

The car would be travelling at 60 mph, and another would suddenly fill the gap. The new gap dictated a speed of 20 mph so the car would immediataley slow to this speed, causing emergency braking in the traffic behind and a few shunts because of it.

The system only worked if everyone else obeyed the rules.
Click to expand...
Or the version fitted to the Mercedes cars where the journalists were all invited to watch the new system, the 2 cars go out on track & up to 70mph they follow in close proximity & then the front car breaks, the second car then plows into the back of it. Somebody had forgot that the safety breaking system had been switched off when putting it onto the trailer to get it to the circuit & nobody had told the driver.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom