Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Back to news
news
Miscellaneous
The ethics of self-driving car collisions: whose life is more important?Google driverless car meets cyclist

The ethics of self-driving car collisions: whose life is more important?

Who dies - the cyclist, the grandmother or the people in the car? How Google makes life and death decisions
by Sarah Barth
Sun, Jun 28, 2015 15:23
69

In an unavoidable collision involving a robotic driverless car, who should die? That’s the ethical question being pondered by automobile companies as they develop the new generation of cars.

Stanford University researchers are helping the industry to devise a new ethical code for life-and-death scenarios.

According to Autonews, Dieter Zetsche, the CEO of Daimler AG, asked at a conference: “if an accident is really unavoidable, when the only choice is a collision with a small car or a large truck, driving into a ditch or into a wall, or to risk sideswiping the mother with a stroller or the 80-year-old grandparent. These open questions are industry issues, and we have to solve them in a joint effort.”

Google’s own self driving car gives cyclists extra space if it spots them in the lane, which theoretically puts the inhabitants of the car at greater risk of collision, but does it anyway. This is an ethical choice.

“Whenever you get on the road, you’re making a trade-off between mobility and safety,” Noah Goodall, a researcher at the University of Virginia.

“Driving always involves risk for various parties. And anytime you distribute risk among those parties, there’s an ethical decision there.”

Google is constantly making decisions based around information and safety risks, asking the following questions in a constant loop.

1. How much information would be gained by making this maneuver?

2. What’s the probability that something bad will happen?

3. How bad would that something be? In other words, what’s the “risk magnitude”?

In an example published in Google’s patent, says Autonews, “getting hit by the truck that’s blocking the self-driving car’s view has a risk magnitude of 5,000. Getting into a head-on crash with another car would be four times worse -- the risk magnitude is 20,000. And hitting a pedestrian is deemed 25 times worse, with a risk magnitude of 100,000.

“Google was merely using these numbers for the purpose of demonstrating how its algorithm works. However, it’s easy to imagine a hierarchy in which pedestrians, cyclists, animals, cars and inanimate objects are explicitly protected differently.”

We recently reported how Google has released a new video showing how its self-driving car is being taught to cope with common road situations such as encounters with cyclists. We’d far rather share the road with a machine that’s this courteous and patient than a lot of human drivers.
 

 

We’ve all been there. You need to turn across the traffic, but you’re not quite sure where, so you’re a bit hesitant, perhaps signalling too early and then changing your mind before finally finding the right spot.

Do this in a car and other drivers just tut a little. Do it on a bike and some bozo will be on the horn instantly and shouting at you when he gets past because you’ve delayed him by three-tenths of a nanosecond.

But not if the car’s being controlled by Google’s self-driving system. As you can see in this video, the computer that steers Google’s car can recognise a cyclist and knows to hold back when it sees a hand signal, and even to wait if the rider behaves hesitantly.

Google
self-drive
self driving cars

Add new comment

69 comments

Avatar
mrmo replied to sidesaddle | 9 years ago
0 likes
sidesaddle wrote:

Choosing not to own a car is in no way similar to not being able to afford one. A few years ago I was in the latter class, towing a trailer on my Ammoco and touting some of Aldi's finest luggage (front basket highly commended, panniers less so). The very moment I could afford a car, I did. I'll guarantee it cost vastly less than your bike. I'm afraid you've largely just underlined the point I made above.

And read the bit after the / can't afford, i know this might come as a shock to some, but there are people about who don't have the money, or who are not old enough, or don't have driving licences. The are people for whom not having a car is not a life style choice but rather a circumstance that is imposed upon them.

Or do you believe that bikes are toys and can never be anything else?

Avatar
sidesaddle replied to mrmo | 9 years ago
0 likes
mrmo wrote:

...
Or do you believe that bikes are toys and can never be anything else?

When my bike was a small (micro?) goods vehicle it was virtually indispensible. When I was a kid, likewise. The two circumstances are connected by their use as a conduit for some other function. But anything which is used for the sake of using it, whether it's a bike, a motorbike, a boat or an XBOX, is a toy. A bicycle has the saving grace of improving health of course, but you could do that by jogging.

Avatar
Mr SciHub2 replied to sidesaddle | 9 years ago
0 likes
sidesaddle wrote:
mrmo wrote:

...
Or do you believe that bikes are toys and can never be anything else?

When my bike was a small (micro?) goods vehicle it was virtually indispensible. When I was a kid, likewise. The two circumstances are connected by their use as a conduit for some other function. But anything which is used for the sake of using it, whether it's a bike, a motorbike, a boat or an XBOX, is a toy. A bicycle has the saving grace of improving health of course, but you could do that by jogging.

By your definition a car is then also a "toy".

I mostly use my bike for short urban journeys cause I hate driving... "toy" or "not toy"?

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... replied to sidesaddle | 9 years ago
0 likes
sidesaddle wrote:
ChairRDRF wrote:

Oh dear, that famous "public image" again. If cars are less likely to be driven too close to cyclists, that's a good thing.

If you want public money to be spent on a pursuit which is mostly (and with some credibility) seen as a hobby for the moneyed middle classes, public image matters.

No, I want it not to be seen as a hobby for the moneyed middle classes. I want it to be recognised that its a more space-efficient, healthier, and less dangerous way to get around. Ultimately I'd like all those I know who mostly use public transport to feel safe using a bike instead.

So your point is moot, rather.

Avatar
vonhelmet replied to sidesaddle | 9 years ago
0 likes
sidesaddle wrote:

I can also foresee situations where it will be extremely loathe to overtake cyclists, not improving our public image one little bit.

You mean it might wait until it's safe to overtake and give plenty of room?

Yeah, wouldn't that just be bloody awful.

Avatar
felixcat | 9 years ago
0 likes

Its interesting that Google is making formal decisions which are already made, but informally and not really acknowledged. I suspect that the resulting choice is made differently. I am coming to welcome these self driving cars.

Avatar
racyrich replied to felixcat | 9 years ago
0 likes
felixcat wrote:

Its interesting that Google is making formal decisions which are already made, but informally and not really acknowledged. I suspect that the resulting choice is made differently. I am coming to welcome these self driving cars.

Indeed. And yet there are those 'instinctive' decisions that are invariably wrong. Slamming on the brakes when a cat/dog/fox/squirrel runs out, causing multiple collisions behind (P.S. don't bother explaining about driving with adequate room to stop, etc, everyone does it).
Or being overtaken approaching a junction and something emerging from the right and the overtaking car swerving in (P.S. don't bother explaining about how you still have to give way to the left when emerging left from a T junction, everyone does it. And yes, don't overtake through a junction, but again, so many people do it).
I'm sure there are numerous other examples where the instinctive human response to a sudden, unforeseeable event is different from what a computer would decide.

Avatar
mrmo replied to racyrich | 9 years ago
0 likes
racyrich wrote:

Indeed. And yet there are those 'instinctive' decisions that are invariably wrong. Slamming on the brakes when a cat/dog/fox/squirrel runs out, causing multiple collisions behind (P.S. don't bother explaining about driving with adequate room to stop, etc, everyone does it).
Or being overtaken approaching a junction and something emerging from the right and the overtaking car swerving in (P.S. don't bother explaining about how you still have to give way to the left when emerging left from a T junction, everyone does it. And yes, don't overtake through a junction, but again, so many people do it).
I'm sure there are numerous other examples where the instinctive human response to a sudden, unforeseeable event is different from what a computer would decide.

Your point about everyone does it, what happens when you have a computer running to rules driving rather than a person ignoring the rules?

Avatar
Bmblbzzz replied to mrmo | 9 years ago
0 likes
mrmo wrote:
racyrich wrote:

Indeed. And yet there are those 'instinctive' decisions that are invariably wrong. Slamming on the brakes when a cat/dog/fox/squirrel runs out, causing multiple collisions behind (P.S. don't bother explaining about driving with adequate room to stop, etc, everyone does it).
Or being overtaken approaching a junction and something emerging from the right and the overtaking car swerving in (P.S. don't bother explaining about how you still have to give way to the left when emerging left from a T junction, everyone does it. And yes, don't overtake through a junction, but again, so many people do it).
I'm sure there are numerous other examples where the instinctive human response to a sudden, unforeseeable event is different from what a computer would decide.

Your point about everyone does it, what happens when you have a computer running to rules driving rather than a person ignoring the rules?

Clearly, the computerised vehicle would check that the space in front of it was clear when pulling out of a side road.

Pages

Latest Comments