| > As noted by someone else above: I should point out that the guy I linked is an AI lawyer, so the replies aren't actually as valuable input in this case… also, I think he uses "evade" to mean "not hitting something" so braking still counts. I've had other discussions with literal self-driving car company engineers where they told me it's not a real problem as usually defined. Though I can't link those, here's one where someone asks the Aurora people about it. https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/q1fsvz/we_are_chris_u... > So braking is clearly not the only option. It's the best option because you're not the only moving thing on the street. Braking in response to a car in front of you is normal, but evasive maneuvers at speed aren't. You don't know what other people are going to do in response to that. Oh, but I will let you turn or reverse as long as you signal first. I just don't think you should do it at speed with no warning even in a "least bad option" situation. > You seem completely blind to the real world issues that driving (among other things) forces onto a system. Sorry for being a theoretical murderer, but you weren't talking about real world issues, you're talking about a trolley problem! That's defined as: - there's 2+ discrete paths you can take. (semi-true for cars) - there really is something on each path you'll hit. (semi-true, in reality they'd react to you in good and bad ways) - your knowledge about this is correct. (not true, SDCs' world-knowledge is not perfect) - you are going fast enough to be dangerous. (semi-true, SDCs will drive at safe speeds more often) - you must go forward. (not true, SDCs can brake or reverse) #3 and #5 being the big problems making this unrealistic. Maybe a real world problem would be driving on a mountain road and there's a boulder about to fall on you? In that case, I agree braking would not be safe. |