Yes, automobiles are very dangerous and it'd be great if we used them a lot less.

That said, driving impaired is even more dangerous and I'm totally fine with tools to crack down on it. Smoke or drink all you want, but do it at home or with someone to give you a ride.

Oh I agree with you, I just think linking to an example of a teenager who was late getting home and got into an accident when he had been smoking marijuana earlier as if it were supporting evidence makes our position look cheesy.

nobody should ever be allowed to drive ever then

Perhaps - automobile-related deaths outnumber gun-related deaths about 30:1.

And that's not to mention all the deaths from diseases associated with air pollution.

Agreed, robot cars when?

Cars using ML will at times have to answer to philosophical questions such as trolley problem.

Honestly, no they don't. If the car is following all applicable laws, no one should ever be in any danger. If someone has violated the law, they have inherently accepted the risks of their decision, and thus the car should protect the occupants.

Someone tied to the street, doesn't apply because (in my state) the car should be moving at a speed that it would be able to stop in time. Someone thrown from a bridge into a cars way isn't one either, the car should try to protect the occupants again, because that's the case where it'll do the least amount of damage to other nearby cars. In the latter case, Humans wouldn't be able to make a moral decision in that amount of time either, and thus, should default to doing the least amount of damage.

> If someone has violated the law, they have inherently accepted the risks of their decision, and thus the car should protect the occupants.

Well, then you are going to need a different ML ruleset here in The Netherlands because bicyclists are protected by law. In the case of an accident with a car, the car driver is (almost always) at fault. That being said, since july 2019 it is illegal to operate a smartphone from your bicycle which, at times, was at odds with the earlier mentioned law.

I assume other countries in the world are going to have different (perhaps in eyes of some peculiar) exceptions to what is deemed normal.

The whole problem with your argument is this it is all "nice, in theory".

> should default to doing the least amount of damage.

"Should", indeed. The question is whether all of these ethical related aspects have been thought out. As the above suggests not only from the US (or whatever state you are in) PoV but with taking into account the entire world and the entire world's ethics and law. Heck, you might have to switch rulesets when crossing a border. Either way that is a very, very complex ruleset you're going to have to work with. And I doubt it is being done...