Re:Why emergency braking systems sometimes hit parked cars a...
by rcthompson on Saturday June 09, 2018 @04:50PM
(#17274913)
Knowing the difference is important because in one case, you need to fix a bug, and in the other case, you need to design a new system (or decide that the problem is unfixable and give up).
Re:Why emergency braking systems sometimes hit parked cars a...
by SiempreViernes on Saturday June 09, 2018 @06:32PM
(#17275386)
How do you un-kill a dead driver with a software release or a new design spec?
A person is dead mainly due to the presence of a driver-assist system, this is unquestionable.
Re:Why emergency braking systems sometimes hit parked cars a...
by rcthompson on Saturday June 09, 2018 @06:52PM
(#17275457)
Who was questioning it? Who was suggesting that it was possible to undo a death that has already happened? I don't understand what point you're trying to make.
All I'm saying is that the distinction is important from the perspective of someone who wants to prevent this from happening again, and the perspective of someone who is in charge of making the laws and regulations to prevent this from happening again, and the perspective of the people voting for those lawmakers.
Well, that point is most likely lost on someone who dies in a crash of these cars. IE, the difference is big from some viewpoints but irrelevant from others.
I think we can see the point where objections to self-driving cars start to become strong. It's not some cooked-up version of the "trolley car problem" but a situation where a self-driving car does something a human observer naturally interprets as "wrong" and "dumb", does it in a way that kills someone and the designers give the answer "sorry, not a mistake, just a necessary design compromise. This is still, on-average safer than a human". I think this would produce a strong emotional effect regardless of any "generally safer" assertion.