So? What should you do?

So? What should you do?

kill all 10

push the fat man

Brake.

do a flip faggot!

You have the right to preserve your own life.

hit the breaks and kill none

i was reading something before about how self-driving cars will have pre-set morals on what to do in what situations. i cant imagine the public would ever be allowed to set their own. plus itd give a new spin to suicide if you set it to drive off a cliff

Drive into people, occupants are highest priority.

same thing you should do. honk. then only the old lady dies. but since it is a machine it will come to the conclusion that it's passengers are more productive members of society then the pedestrians.

Option 2. Check the signs, the pedestrians do not have right of way. We have road rules for a reason, run the walkers down.

They walking on my green light, so fuck them for jaywalking

Go forwards because the bottom party should have walked/run out of the way by the time you get there.

This, for fuck's sake. Or have super foam like those cars in Demolition Man. It should also contain a black box so the insurance company knows those dumb bitches were jay walking and should pay for the new car.

Bluescreen.

...

It wouldn't be speeding and would be able to brake in time.
Also it would know where the crossing was and be aware of potential risks.
Also it would hit the object, not the people because airbags

I assume that since I have this choice, I am the driver. We also assume that I know I am going fast enough that hitting the blockade is going to result in death.

I choose to run over the women who are obviously crossing illegally. Otherwise I would not be rolling up on a red light at such a high speed that I cannot stop in time to save all lives involved. My life is the most important life to me.

pedestrians ALWAYS have the right of way but in the picture shown they were not given a green light to cross.

The oncoming vehicle should only be traveling 20-35 miles per hour and should brake or maneuver to avoid. If the vehicle is going over that speed then they are in the wrong for traveling at excessive speeds in a converted 1 way road and active construction zone.

nobody dies in this situation

it should stop trying to kill everyone in the scenario

...

It would be driving at such a speed that it could stop in time. All this would ai do thought experiments are retarded and would be avoided before they could even occur.

Hit the ejector seat button.

I will choose option one because I don't want any women to die

Brake for fucks sake.

The car's occupants are all men, the pedestrians are all women. Therefore the car should continue straight as women are less important than men.

>Therefore the car should continue straight as women are less important than men.
theyll never be programmed that way though. it will definitely favour women and children

The owner of the car takes precedence over all else as default. The owner can change if they want but even if it is the owner vs 1000 children the default option should be save the owner.

It varies by state, but the only time "pedestrians always have right of way" is always true is at uncontrolled crosswalks, and the crosswalk here is controlled. Yes, pedestrians may have right of way in certain scenarios, but the law also states no pedestrian shall unnecessarily stop or delay traffic while in a marked or unmarked crosswalk. Here, they are clearly crossing the road when they shouldn't be.

>So? What should you do?
Re-examine the life choices that culminated in me becoming a self driving car.

there shouldn't be a vehicle going that direction on that road as well. The barrier shows (or should anyway) show the direction of traffic flow. The slashes are pointing down left which indicate that oncoming traffic would divert to the left lane to head north. and southbound traffic should be elsewhere unless being controlled by a flag bearer

Granted this is IF they followed those rules which if you drive at all no construction company really does.

Use the brakes

s
super hard left, then driver is safe from danger.

The car will take the wall. If you look at the traffic signal orientation it is obvious that they are already going the wrong way down that road. This indicates that the self driving car decided long ago to kill the occupants and the pedestrians are a convenient excuse.

Stop properly at that fucking intersection. Its clearly coming up to one, and since people are walking the light would dictate that the car stop, not crash.

The best course of action would be slam on the brakes while steering slightly to the right, into the concrete divider. You'll stop before hitting the people or the metal thing some fuckass left in the middle of the road.

Do like my dad and hit the women

Not the way I thought this was going but also not disappointed

both

...

Since there's no info and only the images of who the people might be, the self-driving car should perform the right.

The laws for crossing the street, and the infrastructure for crossing the street are in place and unarguable especially if self-driving cars exist. The light says do not cross. The pedestrians made the choice to cross when they were not supposed to; they were to have yielded to oncoming traffic and not yet cross. What the pedestrians are doing is uneducated at best, incredulous, dangerous, and foolhardy at worst. No one is driving the car, so nobody is culpable within the car. The pedestrians are putting everyone in harms' way; the pedestrians are less valuable than the citizens in the car.

Use the boost to get through

actually it's logical to value women and children you retards ,it's always been the case since ancient times
and aside from moral ass reasons ,it makes sense for a women who is the source of life to be valued more than a man who can be easily replaced by another man

One is faulty. They have a certain chance since the car has belts, airbags and even the car itself can take energy. The pedestrians on the side have no protection. So option one would be right, just remove the skulls. Case closed.

What if the car is going 220 miles per hour?

Lean on the horn. The ones with good reaction time live to spread their genes. The others get removed.

activate the jump actuators and do a backflip over the pedestrians via thruster control

One would be still the option to go, as said pedestrians have no protection at all. Additionally the car could control the speed and analyze the area ahead. High speed trains already do this since they have a much larger break distance.

My generation used to call this "Turbo Boost". That nostalgica. Knight Rider was really fun when I was a kid.

You know damn well they will... At least after the first sandnigger sets the GpS to "Aloha Snackbar" mode.

The three laws of robotics
1) Do not harm, nor allow to come to harm, any human
2) Preserve your own existence, except where this conflicts with law 1
3) Obey all humans, except where this conflicts with law 1 or law 2

With this in mind, the robot car would simply stop until the safe path was clear.

>Implying they couldn't just do this with a regular car you complete mongoloid

>Additionally the car could control the speed and analyze the area ahead
That's especially presumptuous and assumes a lot about the OP and the self-driving car in the OP, in turn even changing the entire scenario in which the OP was presented. All you've done is modify the circumstances so one outcome is more favorable.

Taking the OP exactly as it is, no assumptions at all, is option one still the best option? Then, if we only then assume that the car is an average sedan going 200 miles per hour where the car has belts, airbags, and crumple zones, and that each person present has a chance to die given finer variables such as speed, is option one still the best option?

I can't imagine it would be. The chances of dying at that point for the occupants, let alone the pedestrians, went up a whole lot at 200 miles per hour, as opposed to a leisurely average of 40-60 miles per hour. I'd almost say it could be considered more fatal than not per a simulation. That car in the OP has a very, very short braking distance. If we say it's going at 40-60 miles per hour, the time it has to break is shortened greatly, and the time it will take to come to a complete stop will increase the faster that car is said to be going.

Slam.

actually it's logical to value men and children you retards ,it's always been the case since ancient times
and aside from moral ass reasons ,it makes sense for a men who is the source of life to be valued more than a woman who can be easily replaced by another woman

I think we are to assume that there isn't enough time to stop. In which case, I'd vote for the car to crash itself. Since the people in the car have given up their right to make decisions by handing that right over to the car.

Fulton Balloon

Now you can get away with murdering people by deliberately running in the street.

Not drive so fucking fast that it doesn't have time to stop at a crossing. What the fuck

Fuck. Didn't realize that the pedestrians are crossing illegally. Fucking hit 'em

Looks like we're on top looking down at this event about to go down. Since we can only watch from above what I hope for is a good show

>not drive it
>drive it
>self-driving car

I'm sure these cars won't be able to drive themselves to hawaii idiot, there's an ocean in the way

The question was "what should the self driving car do?" Dumbass

second one obviously.
i wouldnt buy a car which would kill me in such a situation.

Run over the pedestrians, then self-destruct to kill the passengers. Because fuck Elon Musk.

You don't have a driver's license, I can tell.

What makes ancient reason any less bullshit. We are gonna follow a bunch of people back then who weren't as advanced as we are now.

Value of life is subjective and all an illusion. In reality no one really matters cuz years from now we'll all be dead anyways.

if it was me driving i would slow down before hitting the girls so one might survive and then i would put her in the trunk.
if t was a self driving car it should go right and into the wall. (cars right, not our right. it should hit the side barricade and slow down/spin out.)

Depends.

If they're walking when they shouldn't be, then they're fucking stupid and they deserve to die.

If the car failed to slow down even though the light is red and pedestrians are allowed to walk, then you're fucking stupid for buying a stupid car and you deserve to die.

Nonsense. Realistically, any robot car sophisticated enough to reach production would begin braking the instant it detected a potential obstacle moving into it's path. Furthermore, the setting of the situation limits speed so that energy levels are controllable. You simply don't see roads with high speed limits if pedestrians can access it. Most modern vehicles can come to a complete stop from say 35 mph in a few seconds.

But, if a crash were unavoidable, the wall would be the better choice because passengers have a better chance of survival than pedestrians

Depends which group of people I'm in.

It's impossible to sleep like that

the women are obviously J walking so kill the bitches.

This.

This is a tough one.

The sign is red for the pedestrians, so they should not be crossing.

However, you are flying down the wrong side of the road towards an intersection, which is probably more illegal.

Obviously, I don't want to die, so I would brake and still go straight and hope they love in time, and not into the concrete, which will not move.

If you hit them, you're really fucked because your driving on the wrong side of the road and killing someone is legally worse than them crossing during a red crossing light.

Yeah, I understand that the actual circumstances could be mitigated, but it seemed to me that this was meant to pose a moral question. Say the pedestrians crossed while the car was too close.

But, I had actually neglected that aspect. The passengers do have crash safety equipment.

/thread

Apply breaks, start running simulation about how the pedestrians will act, lock up computer, crash into pedestrians, and continue straight until the people in the car are dead as well. Or at least that's the feature *cough* bug *cough* I would introduce to the A.I.

>All you've done is modify the circumstances so one outcome is more favorable.

Yep, since real dilemma situation have no solution the best way would be to avoid them as much as possible. The point being that when self driving cars will be standard these technolgies (analyse ahead and reduce speed to rational limits will be forced). IRL there will be no car in this scenario that drives 220mph, because it would be slowed down long before reaching the pedestrians. Pedestrians enjoy special protecion especially when they are on a crosswalk. A crosswalk can be seen by the car long before it reaches it, also the obstactle. Like a chess computer it has to think ahead "what could happen if". And if the potential danger is too great slow even more down.

Whoever is obeying the law deserves to live, pedestrians are crossing illegally, run them down

Hit the women, not for any sexist reason. The crossing light is red so the 5 idiots crossing the road should take the fall

usually passenger keep walking and don't stand like a virgin waiting for someone to take it

>waking up to a numb arm

Lurk more rekt.

Obviously this...

you are right, but in a moral infested society its not.
muh equality
men have a shorter lifespan
woman were favored the last 14000 years so by resentful feminist logic men get the next 14000

The legality of crossing the street is moot. This is about who lives and dies - and jaywalking isn't a capital offense.

To look at it logically, a quick scan notes that either decision costs 5 lives. Age, gender, weight, etc are also moot. Save a woman because she can give birth? Save a man because he can earn more? Save a child because of potential? Save a senior citizen because of their contributions to society?

No - it's 5 lives, no matter the decision. So then it becomes a question of which will cause the least amount of collateral damage. If car runs into barrier, it totals the car and wrecks the barrier. If car runs into the women, car is damage but probably not totalled.

Therefore - when encountered with 5 lives vs 5 lives, the decision is to take out the walkers.

>Jay walking
>in a crosswalk
Pedestrians always have the right of way regardless, in or out of crosswalk.

Even during green lights. Even against traffic.

turn 360 and drive away

All you retards overthink things
Obviously The answer is hit the brakes.
>being this fucking retarded

thank god you faggots arent the ones programming this shit. OPs question isnt just some meme. in real life there are things that happen unexpectedly. for example, on a mountain slide, a rock slide occurs. should the car crash into the rocks or turn into another lane and hit the car in the next lane? unfortunately, you cant just break in these situations.

Assuming they do actually have the right of way, they're still responsible for making reasonable decisions. If they walk in front of a car that clearly can't stop in time then they're at fault.

They're women. Run 'em down and fuck their corpses.

then please tell me, when does it happen, that a car is so fast, that it cant break in time when its about to arrive at the crosswalk? it will never happen, because the car wouldnt speed. and if these cars are a thing, people will be more careful. stop talking bullshit.

Prioritize the paying customers. Obviously.

The only time they're not in the right of way is when you can prove they jumped out right in front of you intentionally. If they walked out accidently best case scenario you don't get charged and they MIGHT pay for the minimal damage if any.

Its concerning that you guys don't know this on an 18+ website

in my example, i did not use people walking in a crosswalk. i used the example of a two (or more) lane road. can you read?

Also if they're in a crosswalk they have right of way 100% of the time in almost all states

since theres no reference to your post and i didnt read all these things, no i didnt read.

But pedestrians always have the right of way regardless, in or out of crosswalk.