Thought Experiment: Driverless automated cars
In the linked article you can read about driver less pods at Heathrow airport that take passengers from the car park to the terminal. Driver less automated pods are certainly part of the future, one day they may even replace ordinary cars on ordinary roads.
However here is a thought, a driver less pod will always be programmed to stop for a pedestrian / obstruction as the whole point in driver less pods is to prevent accidents. This all sounds very sensible and logical but what happens when pedestrians know they can never be hit by a car. Simple, they will step out into the road without looking as they know any car will stop and they cannot be hurt.
Now extend this thought, which basically means that pedestrians now have priority. In towns and cities pedestrians would reclaim the streets, traffic would be brought to a stand still and the whole fabric of society would break down. Ok maybe not that last part.
So if cars are no longer dangerous pedestrians would no longer be wary of them. You could either
a) Trust pedestrians to do the right thing - make it socially unacceptable.
b) Allow cars to be slightly dangerous again.
c) Make it a serious criminal offence to cross the road when a driver less car is coming.
d) Or another option which I haven't yet thought of.
Its an interesting thought which may have to be solved before driver less cars go mainstream.
Posts
1 comment:
It wouldn't mean you could never get hit by a car. Step out in front of a car doing 30 mph that's 10 feet away and it's going to hit you, no matter how quickly the driverless computer spots the hazard, or how quickly or effectively it applies the brakes. There's only so much grip the tires will provide, so even with everything optimised there's going to be a minimum stopping distance, withing which you will still get splatted.
What will probably happen is that in cities it will become much as it already is in much of mainland Europe and the US, in that jaywalking becomes a crime, and you will only be permitted to cross the road at designated traffic-light controlled crossings. It's a bizarre sight, to British eyes, being in a European city, watching revelers pour out of nightclubs at 3am only to queue up patiently and wait for the green man before crossing a completely empty street.
I for one think this would be step back in terms of civil liberties. Currently, walkers, cyclists and horse-riders have an absolute right to use the roads. It is the motor-vehicles that are there by license - it is a privilege for them, not a right. A privilege that can be taken away if they don't play by the rules and meet the standards of driver competence and vehicle roadworthiness. Denying yet more of the public space to the public can't be good thing.
Another interesting consideration, and one that is currently happening, is what happens when you have a mixture of computer and human controlled cars sharing the same space? We already have vehicles that detect potential collisions and will apply the brake in an emergency. If you are following such an equipped vehicle, it can respond to a hazard and apply the brake far quicker than you, meaning the computer-assisted car won't hit the obstacle, but you may well run into the back of the computer assisted car, your Mk1 human brain being unable match the near instant and perfect braking of the vehicle in front. Whose insurance company is responsible then?
Post a Comment