Mercedes answers autonomous car moral dilemma: Yeah, we'll just run over pedestrians It is a question that has grown in urgency since the prospect of truly autonomous cars became a close reality: what does a computer-driven car do when faced with a crash? With decisions likely to be made by algorithms in milliseconds, there will likely need to be a moral component pulled into systems: should a car protect its …
Not sure this approach of protecting the occupants of the vehicle is so unusual. The autonomous system can at least largely control the vehicle, whereas it has absolutely no influence or control over external players.
If someone outside of the car does something reckless then I don't suppose it's really fair to expect the car to sacrifice its own occupants as a result.
It depends on the situation surely? After all, the occupants of the car are effectively wearing a tough suit of armour. It might well be worth dinging the car a bit in order to protect the squishy pedestrian or cyclist - no matter how daftly they might be behaving.
All the same, I'm glad that I'm not responsible for coding that software!
Sure does depend on the situation. After all, dinging the car is one thing. Writing off the people inside of it is another.
Not all external players are pedestrians or cyclists, though. Some of them are in HGVs or trucks. Some of them are idiots in Range Rovers who think they're indestructible.
Depends on the situation, until you're in the situation, when you have no control over the situation.
All of you bean counters are forgetting that both parties, unlike astronauts, have not accepted the possibility of death for the best situational outcome.
"Sorry Mr. Sandman, the situation called for your 5 year old daughter to die. At least I saved one life. But for her sake, I plan to attend all drunk driving classes in her name. Good day."
Older Range / Land Rover vice a good modern car, no contest.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbEa3C2vL7U
Not even close. Range / Land Rover squashed.
As you hinted, the opposite of what they'd think.
I'm sure that the newer ones are less awful.
> Land Rover squashed.
That thing is not a Land Rover - yes I know the marketing people say it is - but it is not.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BcHlMBui-1w
Admittedly it needed a tow and a little panel beating afterwards, but occupants were fine
I had a friend who used to drive Land Rovers in Africa.
They weren't indestructible, and there were many crashes involving wildlife out there. So people fitted bull bars to theirs, thinking it would make them survive the crashes better.
My friend was one of the few who didn't. When he was involved in a crash with wildlife, he found that parts were plentiful to fix the damage... from all the others with major chassis damage due to the mounting of bull bars!
"That thing is not a Land Rover - yes I know the marketing people say it is - but it is not."
The manufacturer at that time was called Land Rover, so yes it is a land rover in the same way that a Ford Mondeo is a Ford.
"Admittedly it needed a tow and a little panel beating afterwards, but occupants were fine"
Thanks to the roll cage. Which you don't tend to get in the dealership model.
>...with a full roll cage fitted, sure.
Learnt to drive in one - but all ours had cages. Don't remember Renault people carriers being an option :)
I've also rolled a couple with only the standard superstructure too - they certainly don't 'squish'. The SWB was roof rated to carry 150KG standard. You could quadruple that with the factory fitted expedition cage.
Your video doesnt show a landrover either, more a landrover shaped dune buggy, without all the extra rollcage in that the roof would have been level with the bottom of the windows, landrovers are useless if you roll them:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rizV-F57deM
I recall this scenario being played out in popular fiction once...
I think the point the merc guy made is what happens next... sure the merc may choose to hit a tree in order to avoid killing the pedestrian, but does that immediately put the car coming the other way in a fix and cause another accident maybe spilling onto a pavement and killing a dozen school kids...
Not sure this approach of protecting the occupants of the vehicle is so unusual.
Er, except in some European countries the exact opposite is codified in law. For example, if a car and a bike collide in The Netherlands, by law it is automatically considered to be the car driver's fault no matter what the circumstances.
if a car and a bike collide in The Netherlands, by law it is automatically considered to be the car driver's fault no matter what the circumstances.
That's with regard to insurance. The pedestrian/cyclist can still be held responsible for causing the accident, and fined accordingly.
"Er, except in some European countries the exact opposite is codified in law. For example, if a car and a bike collide in The Netherlands, by law it is automatically considered to be the car driver's fault no matter what the circumstances."
Hardly surprising coming from a country that thinks living below sea level is sensible and having whores standing in shop windows is perfectly ok.
There is a research project going on at MIT for "morality" of self driving cars which anyone can have a go at - The MIT Moral Machine
Very similar to "the trolley problem" mentioned elsewhere
Love that link but I was a bit disappointed it wasn't a real time live google car with real pedestrians. Anybody can make moral decisions by virtue signaling but it is only in a life/death split second moment can you find the real answers.
My answer is that in the event of a life/death situation the occupants of the car must die, they knew the risks before they took the job, the car company doesn't care because they already have the money and the pedestrians are potential future customers.
My answer is that in the event of a life/death situation the occupants of the car must die, they knew the risks before they took the job, the car company doesn't care because they already have the money and the pedestrians are potential future customers.
A. This is a flawed analysis from the perspective of the car company: a bird in hand is worth two in the bush.
B. Also from that of the customers: there is no job, there is only a consumer product they should have no expectation but that it is engineered to keep them safe. If it gets out that it is not, then point A is out the window on both counts - no-one will buy the product.
Mercedes can't even control their vehicle.
The ADAC (German equivalent of AA) did a test in August of the top cars with automated braking systems. The Mercedes came bottom of the list, it failed to stop completely for pedestrians in daylight, failed to notice a cyclist and failed completely at night.
The winners were Kia, Subaru and VW Passat (the Kia stopping completely for a pedestrian in daylight, nearly stopping for the cyclist and attempting to stop at night, the Subaru nearly stopped in daylight, nearly stopped for the cyclist and stopped completely at night, the BMW failed to stop in all situations, but had managed to drastically reduce speed).
The tests were done on a test track with dummies moving in front of the vehicle at 30mph.
They also have an inflated cushion, which looks like the back end of a VW Touran and is towed behind a car, to test the automated braking at highway speeds. Again, the results were disappointing, with many of the cars running into the back of the obstacle.
Unfortunately only the 2012 test is online and I have thrown out the magazine with the 2016 test report.
the BMW failed to stop in all situations, but had managed to drastically reduce speed).
Would that be because the horrible piece of shitezen had rather poor performance and simply could not run at any thing approaching a normal definition of "speed"? (or more likely, had largely broken down in the few minutes between starting the engine and reaching the stopping point)
(Close friend of mine was a BMW lover.. Then he brought one.. Now he hates them with a passion even I can barely comprehend!)
My best mate bought himself a brand new Mercedes SLK. It rusted. This announcement just demonstrates that, not only can Mercedes not be bothered to build their cars properly, they can't be bothered to put the effort into considering complex ethical problems fully and designing their software accordingly.
Buy a Mercedes? Not if you paid me.
For what it's worth though, I understand that their commercials vehicles are rather good.
I am very happy with my current Mercedes, and have been happy with each of the Mercedes I have owned prior to this one. Given the choice, I wouldn't own anything else.
Unless, of course, a prancing horse was featured on the badge.
I believe it was Mr. Clarkson who said; "If you want to see what technology will be in your car in ten years time, take a look at today's Mercedes S-class."
I don't have to wait ten years, I just walk out to the garage.
I believe it was Mr. Clarkson who said; "If you want to see what technology will be in your car in ten years time, take a look at today's Mercedes S-class."
Perhaps a little longer than 10 years. A friend proudly showed off his second-hand 2-door Mercedes by driving me to a philosophy lecture in Launceston (Tasmania) 10 or 11 years ago. The seat belts were automatic. That is, they were motorised and automatically came forward for the driver and passenger to buckle themselves up. Never seen that in any other vehicle.
That is, they were motorised and automatically came forward for the driver and passenger to buckle themselves up. Never seen that in any other vehicle.
Nissan, 1989, forgot the model, was sold in USA at the time. Mercedes is now using the patent after it expired.
Automated belts were extremely common in the States 25 years ago. At some point the Feds put in a law that the automakers had to introduce either airbags or automatic belts. Well, automatic belts were cheaper so... You can imagine the rest.
As it happens, people *hated* them and vastly preferred vehicles with airbags. A lot of it to do with the uniquely American notion that they didn't need safety belts if they had airbags. (Really. I'm not making that up.) Not only that, but as side airbags were introduced, the automatic belts interfered with them and were quietly dropped.
The seat belts were automatic. That is, they were motorised and automatically came forward for the driver and passenger to buckle themselves up. Never seen that in any other vehicle.
I first saw that on a hire car I had in the US. I think it was a Camry - something like that.
That was ~20 years ago...
Vic.
"Perhaps a little longer than 10 years. A friend proudly showed off his second-hand 2-door Mercedes by driving me to a philosophy lecture in Launceston (Tasmania) 10 or 11 years ago. The seat belts were automatic. That is, they were motorised and automatically came forward for the driver and passenger to buckle themselves up. Never seen that in any other vehicle."
I'm sure if we're talking about the same thing here, but automatic belts were a fad in the early 90s in the US.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SptbcNjYVtw
I quite like my cars with relatively limited technology.
I have been a passenger with someone in a top end Mercedes with mobile phone integrated into car sound / mic system via Bluetooth when they received a call.
Yes the system worked really well ...
But the quality of driving whilst having the conversation made me (seriously) fear for my life (this was on a motorway, not IMHO the place to take calls).
My vote is (I'm assuming better than people self drive cars are a long way off yet) for a car where the driver has the bare minimum to distract them from paying attention to whats happening / might happen on on the road / surrounding area.
Though quite happy to have (generally non distracting) tech that can be safety useful e.g. alerting driver if they seem to be gaining ground to the car in front rather too fast & may be risk of collision, black ice warnings based on temperature & humidity readings etc.
@ tiggity
"But the quality of driving whilst having the conversation made me (seriously) fear for my life (this was on a motorway, not IMHO the place to take calls)."
Forgive my saying so, but your description of this incident does not sound a technology problem, rather that the usual suspect(s) are at it again.
I will not start ranting about my fellow motorists. I will not start ranting about my fellow motorists. I will not start ranting about my fellow motorists.
Whew!
Better now.
My best mate bought himself a brand new Mercedes SLK
See this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3YUfo16_rs and continuation.
There is a world of difference between an old E class tank and the crap on the road today. What was made then, was a Panzer designed to brute force its way around the world 10 times and mileages in the 500K were not unheard of.
What is being built today is better than the really crappy stuff of the past decade, but it is still nowhere near the practically indestructible Panzer models of the 70-es and 80-es.
@ Voland's right hand
"There is a world of difference between an old E class tank and the crap on the road today."
Absolutely right. They were built like tanks. You still see them on the road today.
The problem for Mercedes was that once they'd sold you one of those, it would be a very long time until you came back for another new one.
Planned obsolesence wins another round.
Mercedes are taking a very obvious line here and the decision is perfectly predictable. I'm sure every car manufacturer trial autonomous cars will reach the same decision.
No-one, but no-one, is going to buy a car if they know that it may consciously prefer to kill them over someone else. They're going to buy the car that's advertised with "we'll protect you and your family above all else"
"My best mate bought himself a brand new Mercedes SLK. It rusted"
Metal object rusts! The shocking news at 10.
Seriously though you didnt mention a timeline between these tow events? Weeks, Months, Years? Does he happen to live near the coast? Did he take good care of the paint work?
Generally Merc are good, Ive had mine from new for two years now and theres nothing wrong with it at all despite my best efforts to make it go sideways...
They build so many now there are bound to be a few horror stories.
Generally, a company's first priority is its share holders, followed by its customers. Everyone else is at the end of the list. It is up to the rest of us to set rules through our government that more balanced. It is understandable the Mercedes will take this position, but it should not last.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
