[jbb555]

This isn't hard.

First prioritize the car occupants. The _whole_point_ of the device is to drive them. Second, don't swerve off course to make value judgements on who should live. That is just murder. Third try to minimize loss of life it all else is equal. Save cats and dogs where you can of course but they can't even be the priority.

[reitzensteinm]

Why should the car occupants be prioritized?

In return for the convenience of rapid transportation, you're creating an externality of danger for pedestrians. Why wouldn't it be more just to transfer that risk back to the occupants where possible, and all else equal?

[scatters]

> First prioritize the car occupants.

Morally and legally I'd argue the reverse; the car occupants chose to assume the risk of a mode of transport that can cause death and injury if it fails, while the pedestrians made no such decision. True, the manufacturer has a duty of care to the occupants, but they have a competing duty of care to bystanders.

Otherwise, your reasoning is of course impeccable.

[kilburn]

I completely agree with you, but also make a distinction between red-crossing and green-crossin pedestrians.

1. Law-abiding pedestrians are the top priority to save because they opted for the lowest possible risk offered in our society.

2. Car occupants com second, because they accepted the inherent risk of a faster transport method, but otherwise complied with the rules set to minimize such risks.

3. Red-crossing pedestrians have willingly taken the risk to be run over. If someone must be hurt, it should be them.

[Unman]

I disagree on that distinction. Pedestrians have not introduced the primed-handgrenade of the automobile into the situation. All dangerous consequences that flow from that introduction are the responsibility of the introducer.

Many highway codes explicitly recognize this principle: drivers are supposed to conduct their vehicle as though someone or something may run out in front of them at any stage.

It is true that in practice this implicit morality which reflects the widespread outrage which greeted the introduction of the motor car is now ignored, but that is at the base of many the codes.

[scatters]

> Red-crossing pedestrians have willingly taken the risk to be run over.

That's unlikely; usually, when pedestrians cross without a green light, it's because they've judged there to be a sufficient gap in traffic for them to cross safely, so unless the vehicle has not only failed brakes but also an accelerator stuck on full throttle (in which case it's more important for the car to attempt to forcibly halt itself as soon as possible) it's more likely that the pedestrians believed themselves to be crossing safely.

This could happen if e.g. the lights are faulty or badly designed (too short a cycle, or showing a misleading aspect), if the pedestrians are physically disabled or have an injury such that they failed to make it across during the green cycle, if they have mental health issues or dementia, or simple accident (e.g. tripping, dropping an item in the crosswalk).

[fela]

While that sounds easy what if swerving off course definitely saves one live, but might cause one death with 60% probability? What if it definitely will save 3 lives, and might cause one death with 10% probability? Do you see the problem with absolute rules? Human morality is quite complex and not so easy to model with simple rules.