[LINK] Why you may not own, or drive your vehicle in 10 years time

David Lochrin dlochrin at key.net.au
Thu Jun 9 11:28:12 AEST 2016

Stephen & Mike raise a really excellent question (below).  Only a human can assume moral or legal responsibility, so who would be responsible for a death caused by the actions of a vehicle computer?

Candidates include the pollies who mandated use of the technology, the executives of the company who developed it, and even individuals who drive such vehicles.  Although it's strictly a legal workaround, perhaps we'd see a situation where driverless technology was legally quarantined if such a thing is constitutionally possible.

Where are you Link lawyers and moral philosophers?

On 2016-06-08 22:12 Stephen Loosley wrote:

> For mine, it'll be a question of the definition of the terms, "work reliably."
> It's a problem, but, I'd prefer that my driverless car was not programmed to automatically kill my family over multiple others. I suspect they will be.
> For an example think an impending accident on a mountain road between your family-filled sedan and a bus-load of 20 school excursion kids? Under political correctness for safety purposes which vehicle goes over the side?
> If a human driver can see a one-in-a-hundred chance of both the vehicles staying on the road they'd take it. But, could our "road worthy" computer?

On 2016-06-09 07:37 Mike  wrote:

> My concern is that the driving software etc will become so good that it is made mandatory that it be used at all times, no matter what.  That there will be no option available to the humans involved.  And heavy penalties for disabling or over-riding the system - assuming that in a non-human controlled vehicle it will be possible to disable the system and take over.

David L

More information about the Link mailing list