Hacker News Reader

Comment by supernova87a | Hacker News Reader

The trolley problem has and continues to be a stupid distraction for blogs and would-be pundits to insert some kind of false ethical puzzle into what is a very clear set rules of the road.

There is no trolley problem. When vehicles are on the road and operating according to the rules of the road, there is no choice about whether to swerve to avoid something at the expense of another. Cars are not being commanded to leave the road to avoid crashing into something on the road. You stay on the road, stay in your lane, and don't get involved with people on the sidewalk, etc.

If there's a bicyclist, motorcyclist, etc, they are just as much a vehicle as you are, occupying their position in another lane, or in front/behind you. You stop in your lane, change lanes if safe, and that's it.

There's no, "sacrifice 1 to save 3" kind of argument.

View on HN

Trolley problem situations absolutely can arise; whether the system is programmed to recognise and consider them is entirely beside the point. All that matters is how the system actually behaves when tested.

But I do agree that I don't see such scenarios ever occurring in reality because computer controlled cars are not going to get themselves anywhere near a trolley situation. They'll put the brakes on long before a human would ever recognise the situation as catastrophic. Almost all unexpected emergency situations are straightforward: the correct response will be to brake hard; the consequences are not ethical but rather dictated by physics.

Swerving onto the footpath is an absurd option for countless reasons and cars shouldn't be allowed even if the algorithm is fairly sure the footpath is clear.

The closest plausible scenario to the trolley problem I can imagine actually occurring: "An unidentified object has fallen onto the road meters in front of me, and I am boxed in with cars to my immediate left right and rear so I can't swerve. Do I break hard and probably get rear ended or do I break soft and definitely crash into the unidentified object?"

Even then, the chances that the car behind has automatic braking get higher every year. And if they're so close that they can't brake before hitting you, that's _their_ fault, not yours. Brake, every time.

"Fault" doesn't matter that much in an accident, saving lifes matters. "My wife and child died. But doesn't matter, it was someone elses fault" said no one ever

Not quite the point of what I was trying to convey.

My point was more that your responsibility should be to avoid crashing into things. In the posted scenario, you're probably better off slowing down and being rear-ended than smashing into whatever and then _also_ being rear-ended.

On a slightly different point, if someone's following me so closely that I'm properly worried about their stopping distance, I will slow down and let them pass. Better that the idiot is in front where I can see them properly and they can't crash into me, and then I don't have to worry about the car behind me if I need to brake suddenly.

I don't know why you're being downvoted because you've nailed the problem exactly. There is no "trolley problem". When autonomous vehicles get into trouble, the first and only thing they will do is slam hard on the brakes (in future we can hope they will also signal to autonomous vehicles around them to do the same thing).

Every time I see these tiresome discussions about "should we save a child and kill a pensioner", it's a signal that the speaker has no idea how autonomous vehicles work.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com