MIT posts results of a 4 year global study into the morality of driverless vehicles (who should they save in a crash?)

[mynameisjuan]

1 minute ago, dalekphalm said:

I disagree, because with the Uber crash, at least, the driver/Uber was at least partially at fault. Had the driver been driving a regular vehicle, they likely wouldn't have killed the pedestrian. They might have still struck her, but at a MUCH slower speed, since they would have braked immediately.

But if she would have waited or looked while crossing the accident would have never happened. 

 

Much different than the driver reducing a chance of killing a person. 

 

3 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

That's fantastic - and more people should do that. But there are definitely times when that doesn't happen, and you can't just say "oh well" and run their dumbasses over without trying to stop.

Far from what I am trying to say....please dont put those words in my mouth. 

[dalekphalm]

5 minutes ago, mynameisjuan said:

But if she would have waited or looked while crossing the accident would have never happened.

Perhaps, perhaps. But that's irrelevant. Had the uber broke down, it also wouldn't have happened. Many things could have caused the accident to never happen.

5 minutes ago, mynameisjuan said:

Much different than the driver reducing a chance of killing a person. 

What's your point here? My point is that an inattentive driver, mixed with broken software, meant someone died that likely wouldn't have had the driver been following the law.

5 minutes ago, mynameisjuan said:

Far from what I am trying to say....please dont put those words in my mouth. 

You're saying that the driver isn't at fault when they strike a pedestrian that steps out. That's sometimes true, but definitely, even if they walked out and broke the law, if you could have otherwise avoided the accident, you'll likely still be charged.

[mynameisjuan]

16 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Perhaps, perhaps. But that's irrelevant. Had the uber broke down, it also wouldn't have happened. Many things could have caused the accident to never happen.

What's your point here? My point is that an inattentive driver, mixed with broken software, meant someone died that likely wouldn't have had the driver been following the law.

You're saying that the driver isn't at fault when they strike a pedestrian that steps out. That's sometimes true, but definitely, even if they walked out and broke the law, if you could have otherwise avoided the accident, you'll likely still be charged.

Going in circles at this point with pointless arguments of what if the uber broke down and saying that if she waited say 20 secs for the car to pass this accident would have never happen is irrelevant? 

 

Cross street with traffic ----> chance of getting hit

Dont cross street with traffic ----> impossible to get hit 

 

A leads to B leads to C

Stop it at A and C never happens

 

I am not making this hard. You cant get hit crossing the road if you dont cross the road. (for the love of god dont make a comment about me saying to never cross the road)

[dalekphalm]

2 minutes ago, mynameisjuan said:

Going in circles at this point with pointless arguments of what if the uber broke down and saying that if she waited say 20 secs for the car to pass this accident would have never happen is irrelevant? 

 

Cross street with traffic ----> chance of getting hit

Dont cross street with traffic ----> impossible to get hit 

 

A leads to B leads to C

Stop it at A and C never happens

 

I am not making this hard. You cant get hit crossing the road if you dont cross the road. (for the love of god dont make a comment about me saying to never cross the road)

Yeah - and none of that matters when looking at this situation and who is at fault.

 

You've said above that Uber/The Driver was not at fault. That's questionable at best. Most likely, the driver will eventually be charged with Manslaughter. I don't know what kind of repercussions Uber will face, since there's not really a "My AI ran someone over" law just yet.

 

Yes, definitely, the pedestrian could have avoided the accident completely. But that does NOT absolve the driver of any responsibility.

[mynameisjuan]

1 minute ago, dalekphalm said:

Yeah - and none of that matters when looking at this situation and who is at fault.

 

You've said above that Uber/The Driver was not at fault. That's questionable at best. Most likely, the driver will eventually be charged with Manslaughter. I don't know what kind of repercussions Uber will face, since there's not really a "My AI ran someone over" law just yet.

 

Yes, definitely, the pedestrian could have avoided the accident completely. But that does NOT absolve the driver of any responsibility.

It damn right does matter.

 

She cross when she shouldnt have. She made the decision, she chose to ignore traffic. You are acting like its ubers/drivers fault because they forced her to cross. Those are HER decisions.

 

This is no different than a car pulling out and cutting you off and getting T-boned. They chose to pull out. They chose to cut you off. But since its another driver you will not defend that.

 

If I crossed the road at the wrong time and I get hit its 100% my fault. I chose to cross at a bad time. 

[dalekphalm]

1 minute ago, mynameisjuan said:

It damn right does matter.

 

She cross when she shouldnt have. She made the decision, she chose to ignore traffic. You are acting like its ubers/drivers fault because they forced her to cross. Those are HER decisions.

 

This is no different than a car pulling out and cutting you off and getting T-boned. They chose to pull out. They chose to cut you off. But since its another driver you will not defend that.

 

If I crossed the road at the wrong time and I get hit its 100% my fault. I chose to cross at a bad time. 

The Law does not agree with your opinions.

 

Should someone cross illegally, they are definitely partially (or fully, depending on the circumstances) at fault. However, fault in an accident is NOT a Zero Sum game. Both parties can be at fault. That's what you don't seem to understand.

[mr moose]

2 hours ago, mynameisjuan said:

So I can just go walk out side and run across the road blindly and just blame the driver. Good to know. I guess its all the faults of truck drivers when people jump in front to commit suicide, the driver should have paid attention more, or train conductors that hit people and are now scared for life. 

 

You know, because the pedestrian made a conscious choice to cross, how it making a concision choice to jump in front a moving vehicle any different. 

You are now conflating different road conditions and zones.   We are not talking about the driver being at fault on any other roadway other than the shared one specifically mentioned.

 

 

[mynameisjuan]

38 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

The Law does not agree with your opinions.

 

Should someone cross illegally, they are definitely partially (or fully, depending on the circumstances) at fault. However, fault in an accident is NOT a Zero Sum game. Both parties can be at fault. That's what you don't seem to understand.

It does agree with me with j-walking and freeways

 

There are times when a driver is at fault like driving through a crosswalk because they were texting or taking a right on red and not looking a head when pedestrians DO have the right of way. Both times where you have to be 100% attentive. Those situations are 100% the drivers fault.

 

Law says dont cross a freeway and not to cross without a cross walk. Before ANY drivers or cars are involved the person is already 100% at fault the moment they lay their foot on the pavement. Its a law. Its a rule of life.

 

When rules are involved its hands down a zero sum game. Very very few cases are where each it at fault when it comes to traffic and accidents. One person doesnt follow the rules hence the accident. 

 

But fine, I cant argue this anymore, just throw every driver in jail the moment and accident occurs. People apparently should be allow to mindlessly do whatever whenever with no thought on their action and should never be at fault because their actions should fall in the hands of others. The fuck is this world coming to....no one can think for themselves anymore. 

 

34 minutes ago, mr moose said:

You are now conflating different road conditions and zones.   We are not talking about the driver being at fault on any other roadway other than the shared one specifically mentioned.

Freeways are no crossing zones unless their are crosswalks. What other situation that have occurred happened on "any other roadway". This thread is about AI and the exteme of the extreme cases that the AI has to make. 

[leadeater]

2 hours ago, mynameisjuan said:

This lady was hit on a freeway which 2 or more lanes are not shared roads. This is why J walking is a law, not enforced like other laws but still. This accident wasnt in the city 20mph "safe zone"  or school zone with a cross walk and caution signs. 

Yes but that conversation chain was specifically about those special shared zones and originated from a video showing one, then a bunch of people got all confused over what they were or if they even existed.

 

The video was actually to demonstrate a situation where AI would have extreme difficulty handling because there are no road markings, no signs (other than on entry to the zone) and people walking or cycling all over the place in no set pattern. We as humans can handle that just fine, AI even in the next 10 years would most likely have extreme difficulty in that situation.

[dalekphalm]

2 minutes ago, mynameisjuan said:

It does agree with me with j-walking and freeways

Why do you keep mentioning freeways? The Uber accident didn't occur on a Freeway.

 

For reference, the accident occurred somewhere around here. This is not a freeway (literally a few meters above this, the two sides of the road connect into your more typical road.

Spoiler

 

2 minutes ago, mynameisjuan said:

There are times when a driver is at fault like driving through a crosswalk because they were texting or taking a right on red and not looking a head when pedestrians DO have the right of way. Both times where you have to be 100% attentive. Those situations are 100% the drivers fault.

Yep. And?

2 minutes ago, mynameisjuan said:

Law says dont cross a freeway and not to cross without a cross walk. Before ANY drivers or cars are involved the person is already 100% at fault the moment they lay their foot on the pavement. Its a law. Its a rule of life.

Again, why are you mentioning a Freeway?

2 minutes ago, mynameisjuan said:

When rules are involved its hands down a zero sum game. Very very few cases are where each it at fault when it comes to traffic and accidents. One person doesnt follow the rules hence the accident. 

Again, you're wrong. Just because one person doesn't follow the rules, doesn't mean the other person did follow the rules.

 

In many cases, both parties are guilty of violating rules of the road.

2 minutes ago, mynameisjuan said:

Freeways are no crossing zones unless their are crosswalks. What other situation that have occurred happened on "any other roadway". This thread is about AI and the exteme of the extreme cases that the AI has to make. 

Again with this Freeway talk. Look at my screenshot above, you see the overpass at the bottom? That's a freeway.

[mynameisjuan]

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

Yes but that conversation chain was specifically about those special shared zones and originated from a video showing one, then a bunch of people got all confused of what they were or if they even existed.

 

The video was actually to demonstrate a situation where AI would have extreme difficulty handling because there are no road markings, no signs and people walking cycling all over the place in no set pattern. We as humans can handle that just fine, AI even in the next 10 years would most likely have extreme difficulty in that situation.

And it will continue to be a problem. The problem is people. AI follows rules, people dont. This makes AI decision making next to 100% impossible to predict. 

 

If people didnt speed, signaled, stop crossing 6 lanes of traffic on a busy highway, crossed on a cross walk, didnt ignore the do not cross sign, didnt drive drunk, didnt text while driving, didnt try to run a red light, kept a safe distance, didnt drive 1/3rd the speed in icy conditions....etc... There wouldnt be accidents to begin with. 

 

AI is not the problem, people and their chaotic nature are. 

[mynameisjuan]

2 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Why do you keep mentioning freeways? The Uber accident didn't occur on a Freeway.

 

For reference, the accident occurred somewhere around here. This is not a freeway (literally a few meters above this, the two sides of the road connect into your more typical road.

THAT IS A FREEWAY!!! What is above lower in the image is a highway. Freeways are designed for high traffic flow areas with crossing zone only at intersections and compose of 1 or more lanes and higher than city speed limits (30mph) 

 

Highways are high traffic flow roads with no crosswalks nor intersections. This then goes of down a tangent of interstates and expressways.

 

Unless you are on a road with a speed limit of 30mph or crosswalk NOT at intersections, you are on a freeway. 

 

 

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, mynameisjuan said:

Freeways are no crossing zones

And that right there is the problem, no one is talking about freeways, you are conflating driving on freeways with the actual discussion of shared zones.  And now it looks like you are trying to use freeway scenarios to prove a point that no one even cares about.   

[dalekphalm]

1 hour ago, mynameisjuan said:

THAT IS A FREEWAY!!! What is above lower in the image is a highway. Freeways are designed for high traffic flow areas with crossing zone only at intersections and compose of 1 or more lanes and higher than city speed limits (30mph)

What? I'm sorry my friend. You are mistaken:

That road is definitely not a freeway by definition. It literally has an intersection a few blocks from where the accident happened. Actually, I just double checked Google Maps - there are intersections at both ends. It only splits because it goes over water

 

Another source:

https://www.diffen.com/difference/Freeway_vs_Highway

 

You are using the term Freeway incorrectly. Perhaps you mean Parkway or something like that?

1 hour ago, mynameisjuan said:

Highways are high traffic flow roads with no crosswalks nor intersections. This then goes of down a tangent of interstates and expressways.

Interstates, expressways, and freeways are all forms (subvariants) of highways.

1 hour ago, mynameisjuan said:

Unless you are on a road with a speed limit of 30mph or crosswalk NOT at intersections, you are on a freeway.

Further evidence to disprove your notion that it's a freeway:

This is a few blocks away from the accident. Note the 30 MPH speed limit.

 

This is right around the accident location - note, there were no speed limit changes between the above picture and this, therefore the speed limit is still 30 MPH:

Also note the BIKE LANE. Freeways don't have bike lanes. That would be actually insane.

 

Look, you made a mistake - that's okay, but let's not keep going down this rabbit hole.

[dalekphalm]

14 minutes ago, mr moose said:

And that right there is the problem, no one is talking about freeways, you are conflating driving on freeways with the actual discussion of shared zones.  And now it looks like you are trying to use freeway scenarios to prove a point that no one even cares about.   

Well to be fair, there are 2 different conversations going on. I'm not even sure if @mynameisjuan is even involved in your discussion (at least, not intentionally).

 

We were talking specifically about the Uber incident, in which he claims the Driver and Uber (or the car, however way you look at it) were not at fault, since the pedestrian broke the law.

 

I was correcting him, since just because one party is at fault, does not require that the other party also does not share some blame. Both parties can in fact be at fault, to some degree or another.

 

He then went on to keep talking about freeways, despite the accident area most definitely not falling on any standardized definition of "freeway", and also since there are bike lanes, side walks, etc, all around the road in question.

[bitsandpieces]

On 10/30/2018 at 9:47 PM, mynameisjuan said:

Yep because a person blindly ran into the street and was killed so no designers and the driver are to blame. 

 

We wouldnt need to have many of these AI laws if humans would drive correctly and stop crossing the roads expecting someone to stop for you.

Isn't this whole reason of the self driven car to exists?

[mr moose]

3 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

Well to be fair, there are 2 different conversations going on. I'm not even sure if @mynameisjuan is even involved in your discussion (at least, not intentionally).

 

That would have been fine if he didn't join in my discussion with another user regarding shared zones without addressing the actual discussion let alone continue to argue highway/freeway when I had clearly explained we were talking about shared zones only.

 

[TechyBen]

11 hours ago, mynameisjuan said:

And it will continue to be a problem. The problem is people. AI follows rules, people dont. This makes AI decision making next to 100% impossible to predict. 

 

If people didnt speed, signaled, stop crossing 6 lanes of traffic on a busy highway, crossed on a cross walk, didnt ignore the do not cross sign, didnt drive drunk, didnt text while driving, didnt try to run a red light, kept a safe distance, didnt drive 1/3rd the speed in icy conditions....etc... There wouldnt be accidents to begin with. 

 

AI is not the problem, people and their chaotic nature are. 

I posted a video of people following rules. An actual video. The rules were "drive slow, walk slow, cycle slow" and everyone followed them.

 

The difficulty is if we set contradictory or impossible rules. "Get to work by 8 am, do 12 hours, and live 50 miles away with access to only 1 congested freeway while meeting the speed limit, traffic laws and allow for pedestrians" will eventually hit a contradictory or impossible to keep law. Something will budge. Someone will speed to get to work early, or get tired and make a mistake, or decide cars have precedence over pedestrians (so change the laws for one person, against the other).

 

The same with AI cars. We could rush them out the door (hello Uber) before they work*, or we can do it slow, and introduce them as and when they can follow a law (self parking now exists), or change the law to match them (could introduce AI only freeways etc).

 

However... many many people seem to think impossibilities are easy to negate.

 

*In your example you say "AI follow laws humans don't" then see the UBer car fail to brake. It like, failed to react. It had no programming for an incident, it had no law or reaction condition. The AI "follows laws until it fails", which is basically what humans do.

 

Final example. IF I invent a rocketpack, sell millions, should I insist everyone build rocket proof roofs to their houses? Walk around with rocket proof umbrellas to keep safe? Wear ear protection because of the noise? However, that is what happened with the car. Everyone was told "do not go outside, it's dangerous" because the car was invented. That however, is a choice, not a universal right.

[mynameisjuan]

10 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

Perhaps you mean Parkway or something like that?

I think you are correct. This would fall more under parkway.

 

9 hours ago, bitsandpieces said:

Isn't this whole reason of the self driven car to exists?

Thats what my sentence said. 

 

6 hours ago, mr moose said:

That would have been fine if he didn't join in my discussion with another user regarding shared zones without addressing the actual discussion let alone continue to argue highway/freeway when I had clearly explained we were talking about shared zones only.

This topic just doesnt apply to shared zone only though, it applies to all roads. Hell it applies more to non-shared roads where higher speeds limit actions that can be done by the car and at that point is when AI needs to decided whether to hit the couple crossing or drive head on into the wall killing the driver. 

[dalekphalm]

8 hours ago, mr moose said:

That would have been fine if he didn't join in my discussion with another user regarding shared zones without addressing the actual discussion let alone continue to argue highway/freeway when I had clearly explained we were talking about shared zones only.

 

Let's be honest, these kind of "shared zones" (which, frankly, might be a thing more common outside of North America, as I've never seen one before) are likely going to be "autonomous free" zones - at least, until we get to the level of Autonomous AI where they are true real AI which can think for themselves and understand their environment to the same degree as a human can intuitively.

 

I think we'll see the slow introduction of autonomous cars onto regular, marked roads first, then, over time, we'll see governments start to create "Autonomous Only" roads for long distance travel - these roads will not be accessible by a regular human driver, and the speed limits will be vastly faster (eg: 200 km/h).

[mr moose]

7 hours ago, mynameisjuan said:

This topic just doesnt apply to shared zone only though, it applies to all roads. Hell it applies more to non-shared roads where higher speeds limit actions that can be done by the car and at that point is when AI needs to decided whether to hit the couple crossing or drive head on into the wall killing the driver. 

The problem is you are arguing like it does.  There was a very well defined discussion occurring and you joined in to tell me I was wrong even after explaining to you that we were discussing shared zones.   Whether AI can deal with shared zones,  how many there are or how much more AI has to deal with other things does not change the nature of shared zones or the points that were being made.

 

No one said ignore AI on every other road because a shared zone exists, we where talking about driver responsibility in shared zones, nothing else.

5 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

Let's be honest, these kind of "shared zones" (which, frankly, might be a thing more common outside of North America, as I've never seen one before) are likely going to be "autonomous free" zones - at least, until we get to the level of Autonomous AI where they are true real AI which can think for themselves and understand their environment to the same degree as a human can intuitively.

 

 If these people have never encountered one and don't understand what they are then maybe they shouldn't be so adamant that they understand how they work and that we are wrong for explaining them and using them as an example.

[Master Disaster]

21 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

Let's be honest, these kind of "shared zones" (which, frankly, might be a thing more common outside of North America, as I've never seen one before) are likely going to be "autonomous free" zones - at least, until we get to the level of Autonomous AI where they are true real AI which can think for themselves and understand their environment to the same degree as a human can intuitively.

 

I think we'll see the slow introduction of autonomous cars onto regular, marked roads first, then, over time, we'll see governments start to create "Autonomous Only" roads for long distance travel - these roads will not be accessible by a regular human driver, and the speed limits will be vastly faster (eg: 200 km/h).

Here in England shared zones are pretty common, we call them pedestrian zones and many town centres use them to allow traffic to drive through pedestrian areas.

 

They even have their own signage

Left means no vehicles except for vehicles making deliveries and only in the highlighted times.

 

Middle means cars and bikes are ok, commercial vehicles are OK too but heavy vehicles can only access at highlighted times.

 

Right means no vehicles are OK all the time.

 

While driving through pedestrian zones pedestrians maintain right of way at all times and vehicles must drive safely (though its not actually stated speed is expected to be under 5mph at all times).

 

[bitsandpieces]

13 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

They even have their own signage

Left means no vehicles except for vehicles making deliveries and only in the highlighted times.

 

Middle means cars and bikes are ok, commercial vehicles are OK too but heavy vehicles can only access at highlighted times.

Middle, that's not what it means

This sign informs that no motor vehicles are allowed

 

No vehicles except bicycles being pushed

[Master Disaster]

3 minutes ago, bitsandpieces said:

Middle, that's not what it means

This sign informs that no motor vehicles are allowed

 

No vehicles except bicycles being pushed

You are of course correct.

 

It's been 22 years since i passed my test and haven't actively drove in over 10 years as I have an eye disease that means my eye sight isn't good enough. I guess my memory on the subject isn't to good.