25 October 2015 (21:36 UTC-07 Tango 01, 24 October 2015)/03 Aban 1394/11 Muharram 1437/13 Bing-Xu (9th month) 4713
The deadly incident in which an allegedly intoxicated woman plowed her car into a crowd of people at the Oklahoma State University’s homecoming parade brings home a moral dilemma for driverless cars: How many people are OK to kill?
Advocates of driverless cars no doubt would say this terrible accident is why we need driverless cars, but wait, researchers at exalted MIT (the place where many of the Americas’ dictators and drugs dealers went to school) revealed that programmers of driverless cars are trying to decide how to tell the computer how many pedestrians can be killed. It’s the old hypothetical moral dilemma test of would you kill the fat man by pushing him in front of a runaway train because it might stop the train from hitting a dozen other people who are for some reason stuck on the tracks?
The MIT scenario is that a driverless car is suddenly confronted with a crowd of pedestrians in the street. If the car swerves onto the sidewalk to avoid those idiot pedestrians then the car hits and kills pedestrians on the sidewalk. What is the driverless car, that’s supposedly more intelligent than most humans, supposed to do?
Unknowingly this MIT posed dilemma brings up another legalistic dilemma: Is the resulting accident the car’s fault or the human ‘driver’s fault?
Does hands free driving mean legally free of responsibility?
Ever since the first car accidents occured people have tried to blame the accidents on the car itself. Now, with the so called safer driverless (because they eliminate human error?) car the human occupants could legally be absolved of any responsibility. Not only regarding anybody who got killed, but instead of suing the vehicle owner for damages you can now directly sue the vehicle maker, even the subcontractor who programed the car.
Afterall, who in their right mind would by a self-driving car when they could be held legally responsible for the actions of that self-driving car? (and don’t forget that computer controlled vehicles can be hacked into)
What’s the point of driving a car if you’re not actually driving the car? Or maybe it’ part of the conspiracy to get rid of independence creating personally owned vehicles?
So much for your Rockefeller Rothschild Bilderberg Liberal Brave New Agenda 21 Trendy 1984 Animal Farm World!
NEW CAR TECHNOLOGY CONFUSING MANY DRIVERS
China invests big into driverless electric cars!