21–30 of 48 posts
"I'm sorry we're falling off a mountain right now, but it was us or that family."
If you are in a situation where there is a risk of falling off a mountain and you are driving fast enough that you can't safely stop if you see people in front of you, you are doing something wrong. A self-driving car should definitely not even get into situations where it's forced to make decisions like that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that self-driving cars should act in the self interest of the owners. It will encourage people to use self-driving cars and decrease road deaths. Also, if you are at a rail yard and see something hurtling toward 5 workmen and can push a fat man in front to protect them, you should refrain. The workmen had the opportunity and duty to take actions to prepare for and prevent rogue train cars. The fat man should…
> I think that self-driving cars should act in the self interest of the owners. To what extent? At some point, we're going to have to decide as a society what call a self-driving car has to make in situations like "I can run down this family in the cross-walk or get rear-ended by that oncoming vehicle".
The car will be aware of the presence of the crosswalk. It will slow long before arriving at it. So the deaf and blind family will likely be safe.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
try: brakes() except BrakeFailure: emergency_brakes()
Yes, but have you ever stopped with your eBrake? first, it doesn't usually effect all 4 wheels, and second, it isn't antilock. If, traveling 60mph your master cylinder or brake lines fail, the E Brake might not do the job. I know the E Brake in my Toyota Tundra wouldn't stop me if I were going 60mph. Again, my point was not to say that this was likely to happen, but merely that we should ensure that there is framewor…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you are in a situation where there is a risk of falling off a mountain and you are driving fast enough that you can't safely stop if you see people in front of you, you are doing something wrong. A self-driving car should definitely not even get into situations where it's forced to make decisions like that.
Unexpected road conditions? Falling rock, black ice, etc.?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, but have you ever stopped with your eBrake? first, it doesn't usually effect all 4 wheels, and second, it isn't antilock. If, traveling 60mph your master cylinder or brake lines fail, the E Brake might not do the job. I know the E Brake in my Toyota Tundra wouldn't stop me if I were going 60mph. Again, my point was not to say that this was likely to happen, but merely that we should ensure that there is framewor…
Most people think of the parking brake as an emergency brake for some reason. These things are wimpy brakes that are designed to prevent a vehicle from rolling if parked incorrectly or on a hill. They are generally cable actuated and don't have much stopping force if the vehicle is in motion. The Tundra has a foot-activated ratcheting parking brake and I don't recall it ever being referred to as an "emergency brake"…
Some car manuals actually labeled it "emergency brake".
Customers Want Cars to Not Kill Them FTFY
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I think that self-driving cars should act in the self interest of the owners. To what extent? At some point, we're going to have to decide as a society what call a self-driving car has to make in situations like "I can run down this family in the cross-walk or get rear-ended by that oncoming vehicle".
When autonomous vehicles encounter an obstacle, they brake. Moreover, why in this problem, that appears in absolutely every thread about self-driving cars, is there a family in a crosswalk with no awareness whatsoever of a speeding vehicle? Are they deaf and blind without assistance? This is not a joke. The car will be aware of the presence of the crosswalk. It will slow long before arriving at it. So the deaf and bl…
e.g. Child darts in front of car. Slam on brakes and hope for best or swerve off road (which probably isn't a cliff) or into traffic? And perhaps there is a different calculus if the car isn't carrying a passenger.
But, for the most part, these trolley arguments are pretty uninteresting from a technical, as opposed to a philosophical, perspective. It's going to be very rare that an autopilot would even in principle be able able to reliably forecast a significantly better outcome than hitting the brakes and/or otherwise protecting itself/its occupant as much as possible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, but have you ever stopped with your eBrake? first, it doesn't usually effect all 4 wheels, and second, it isn't antilock. If, traveling 60mph your master cylinder or brake lines fail, the E Brake might not do the job. I know the E Brake in my Toyota Tundra wouldn't stop me if I were going 60mph. Again, my point was not to say that this was likely to happen, but merely that we should ensure that there is framewor…
Most people think of the parking brake as an emergency brake for some reason. These things are wimpy brakes that are designed to prevent a vehicle from rolling if parked incorrectly or on a hill. They are generally cable actuated and don't have much stopping force if the vehicle is in motion. The Tundra has a foot-activated ratcheting parking brake and I don't recall it ever being referred to as an "emergency brake"…
That's because that's what it used to be called. In the owner's manual. I imagine the change might be due to liability more than anything else. That, and just marketing. No one wants to imply that you'll have an emergency in your shiny, new Chrysler.
These things are wimpy brakes that are designed to prevent a vehicle from rolling if parked incorrectly or on a hill. They are generally cable actuated and don't have much stopping force if the vehicle is in motion.
Fifty years ago, this would describe most brakes on consumer vehicles [0]. They're wimpy because they're drum brakes (though more upscale vehicles have rear discs). They are difficult to modulate because they're actuated by flexy cables. But cable-actuated drum brakes were what you got when you bought a 1960 Chevy.
As for stopping force, a parking brake should have all of the stopping power that the rear brakes usually have. The reason they often don't have much stopping power is because most people don't have them adjusted regularly (meaning the cable runs out before the full power available is applied), or more commonly they don't use it at all and the cable rusts up. If properly maintained, you should be able to lock the rear wheels at speed.
[0] EDIT: give or take. I don't remember exactly when cars went hydraulic, and the web's no help. I did own a 60's Harley/Aramachi motorcycle that had cable-actuated brakes, FWIW.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I think that self-driving cars should act in the self interest of the owners. To what extent? At some point, we're going to have to decide as a society what call a self-driving car has to make in situations like "I can run down this family in the cross-walk or get rear-ended by that oncoming vehicle".
I'd rather see a focus on smarter and faster braking then on solving contrived moral dilemmas.
For the one-in-a-trillion cases where this is not true, it's OK if the car reacts sub-optimally. It will still be vastly better than human drivers, who frequently react sub-optimally in unambiguous situations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I think that self-driving cars should act in the self interest of the owners. To what extent? At some point, we're going to have to decide as a society what call a self-driving car has to make in situations like "I can run down this family in the cross-walk or get rear-ended by that oncoming vehicle".
When autonomous vehicles encounter an obstacle, they brake. Moreover, why in this problem, that appears in absolutely every thread about self-driving cars, is there a family in a crosswalk with no awareness whatsoever of a speeding vehicle? Are they deaf and blind without assistance? This is not a joke. The car will be aware of the presence of the crosswalk. It will slow long before arriving at it. So the deaf and bl…