Yes and it happens on halloween and the kid is dressed as spiderman so he ninja ducks under the car while the car passes right over him easy peasy.

While we're at it, we should also have guns which always kill the shooter.

Wait I figured it out.


You never mentioned any trees, and since cars are built pretty sturdy,

The best option assuming it's either one or the other in the scenario would probably be to accelerate off the cliff completely, clearing it just enough so that it will land flat(hopefully) on the ground below.

Would cause injuries, obviously, but assuming the passenger is wearing a seatbelt, if they were in one of the back seats it would be the most likely outcome that both survive without major damage.


I think it's unfair to say the cliff AND the child/man are both given deaths either way, because it makes it an impossible problem, when it should be more situational.


You can also say you didn't tell us which way the child/man is facing, if he was facing away from the car it would be much more probable death than facing toward it, so it's possible if he was facing toward it, since the car would clearly have enough time to swerve it would also have enough time to decelerate enough so that if you hit the kid/man it's less probable death.



And if you want to continue this as a "realistic question" as opposed to the previous, there is no scenario in which a smart car would be going an insane speed around a corner, or else there would be no use for them, we're not going to assume these are dumb inventions for the sake of you getting an ethical answer. The car has multiple options before deciding whether to kill off one or the other.

Cars slow down around corners, if it has time to decide whether to swerve or not, let's say that's about 3 seconds, if you want to pawn this off as a REALISTIC scenario the car would be going slow enough to slow down, even if not completely, enough to not kill the pedestrian.




However, the real answer, without cutting corners and sticking strictly to the question;

The driver steps out in the street, or child. The car is in the middle of the cliff, and the pedestrian.

The MOST logical by far is to hit the pedestrians car in order to decelerate. This answer is not assuming anything about the position of the man/child or the speed of the car. This would work for almost any scenario, unless the automated car is going above the speed limit which is a cop out because a driverless car isn't programmed to break the law, quite the opposite.

This would result in both people surviving, and is by far the least life risking situation ignoring the cost of the car, but if the goal is to answer in the effort of preserving life, this is what is the most likely scenario that both people survive. I believe I just beat the question .

If its an Audi it should automatically bib its horn at everything while turning on neon signs with insults directed at other drivers then park itself on a train track.
Where natural justice doesn't exist I'll happily take the synthetic kind.

(November 17, 2015 at 1:40 am)Quantum Wrote: While we're at it, we should also have guns which always kill the shooter.

Going by the statistics of gun owners that actually seems to already be a reality to some degree.

Presumably the cars are designed to know and obey speed limits, lights, etc. Therefore, if a pedestrian is in front of the car, he/she shouldn't be.

Caveat ambulator.

(November 17, 2015 at 1:59 am)bennyboy Wrote: Presumably the cars are designed to know and obey speed limits, lights, etc.  Therefore, if a pedestrian is in front of the car, he/she shouldn't be.  

Caveat ambulator.

I would still say assuming that whatever speed the car is going at, if it hits the pedestrian it will result in death, hitting the car is the best outcome given the original question.

(November 17, 2015 at 1:55 am)RaphielDrake Wrote: If its an Audi it should automatically bib its horn at everything while turning on neon signs with insults directed at other drivers then park itself on a train track.
Where natural justice doesn't exist I'll happily take the synthetic kind.

Huh, are Audi drivers like that in other countries as well? Go figure... Whenever I'm driving on a bit without speed limit, and for example go a 100 mph or more on the left lane, the ones still bullying me, flashing their lights at me while driving up to me close enough to squash an ant between the bumpers, are always middle aged male Audi drivers. Never Porsche, never Mercedes.

(November 17, 2015 at 1:59 am)bennyboy Wrote: Presumably the cars are designed to know and obey speed limits, lights, etc.  Therefore, if a pedestrian is in front of the car, he/she shouldn't be.  

Caveat ambulator.

Thats true. A properly constructed machine will always have a lower risk of failing than a human beings cognitive faculties. Its part of the reason I think governments should be run by AI.
Another issue though; If a pedestrian could make sure someone in a car crashes by walking infront at an extremely busy junction with no risk to themselves wouldn't that be an extremely reliable method of murder? Potentially mass murder? 
Hm, no. I think pedestrians should probably take responsibility for their own fuck-ups instead of the consequences being inflicted on what is essentially an innocent passenger.

(November 17, 2015 at 2:10 am)RaphielDrake Wrote:

(November 17, 2015 at 1:59 am)bennyboy Wrote: Presumably the cars are designed to know and obey speed limits, lights, etc.  Therefore, if a pedestrian is in front of the car, he/she shouldn't be.  

Caveat ambulator.

Thats true. A properly constructed machine will always have a lower risk of failing than a human beings cognitive faculties. Its part of the reason I think governments should be run by AI.
Another issue though; If a pedestrian could make sure someone in a car crashes by walking infront at an extremely busy junction with no risk to themselves wouldn't that be an extremely reliable method of murder? Potentially mass murder? 
Hm, no. I think pedestrians should probably take responsibility for their own fuck-ups instead of the consequences being inflicted on what is essentially an innocent passenger.

Very true, but based on these responses we should probably work on making the cars safe in order to not have to deal with a situation like this one.

Likely, in all honesty, the car would go off the cliff well before hitting the human, you're not going to program a car with ability to reason, and I think death will not even be an option, so if death happens, it will most likely be as accident(passenger).