Do we really need driverless cars?

Do we really need driverless cars?

While the idea of a computer driving your car may sound appealing to those who hate sitting in traffic or are tired at the end of a long day, the truth is that even with all of its software updates, your car will never be as safe as you driving it. Even if every vehicle on the road were driverless, accidents would still happen. Computers are made by humans, and humans make mistakes. To assume that all human errors can be removed from computers is not realistic. Instead of looking to technology to fix our problems, let’s look at ways we can improve what we already have: our roads and our drivers.

Combating distracted driving with technology isn’t the answer; teaching drivers how to use the roads more safely is the better path forward.

What would be required to make driverless cars safe?

In order to make driverless cars safe, I believe there’s still a lot of work that needs to be completed.

For example, more real-world testing is needed to test the car’s ability to handle dangerous situations and with different road types. Additionally, sensors need to be much more accurate in order to detect objects and their distance away from the car (a human can do this by sight alone).

Driverless cars need the ability to detect and react to dangerous situations. They also need the ability to follow traffic laws, predict and react human behavior (and animal behavior), not drive too fast or too slow, not get distracted by technology or other passengers within the vehicle.

Research shows that more traffic fatalities occur in states without helmet laws.

More traffic fatalities occur in states without helmet laws.

In fact, the research shows that more traffic fatalities occur in states without helmet laws than in states with them. According to a study published by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, although Nebraska has no helmet law while Illinois does, Illinois has a lower traffic fatality rate. This may be because head injuries are the leading cause of death and disability in traffic accidents. In fact, helmets have been shown to reduce the risk of head injury by 85 percent and brain injury by 88 percent. Also, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, motorcycle fatalities are 35 times more frequent than car crash fatalities per mile traveled.

Should driverless cars be programmed to save the most lives?

Driverless cars are starting to come into play here in Canada, and as a philosophy of ethics, utilitarianism is the obvious choice.

Utilitarianism means that everything should be done for the greatest good for the greatest number of people. In this case, it would probably mean sick children would be saved from being run over by driverless cars by those who could not help because they are contorted in pain on their deathbeds. But what about all those other drivers? How do we decide who gets priority and who does not?

That’s exactly where things get more difficult. There’s a philosophical question called the trolley problem: Driverless cars with no steering wheel or brakes are programmed to kill certain individuals (e.g., pedestrians), but can be programmed to turn back before they hit them. The original version of this problem was set up when a runaway train was heading toward five people tied up on the tracks, one of whom was pregnant. Of course, if you were in charge (you’re reading this blog right now and are in charge!), which life should you save? Should you turn around before it’s too late? Or should you keep driving—even though doing so will end one person’s life immediately—in hopes that it will result in saving another? To be honest, I’m still thinking about it…

Who would be liable in an accident involving a driverless car?

Let’s say a car driving down the road automatically slammed on the brakes, causing you to rear end it. If you had been driving, the collision would be your fault and the insurance company wouldn’t have to pay for repairs or medical bills. But who is legally responsible here? Is it you, since your car crashed into another vehicle? Is it the driver of the car in front of you, even though their car didn’t actually cause any harm?

What if that driver was asleep at the wheel and had no idea what just happened? The same question arises in accidents involving self-driving cars. Who is at fault when an autonomous vehicle gets into an accident?

In theory, this should be simple: The company that programmed or manufactured these vehicles would be responsible if they don’t work properly and cause injuries or damage. However, there’s more than one problem with this scenario:

• It isn’t always clear whether a manufacturer or programmer was at fault for something going wrong with a self-driving vehicle;
• Car manufacturers don’t want to take responsibility for accidents caused by their autonomous technology;
• There may not be enough evidence for victims to prove that someone else caused their injuries.

we should have safer roads before creating new technology.

There are over 32,000 traffic fatalities in the U.S. every year. We want to do better than that, and we can. There is already a lot of documented research that shows that more traffic fatalities occur in states without helmet laws than those with them. That’s because helmets are proven to save lives in motorcycle accidents, and they don’t interfere with safe driving habits — they only make those habits safer.

Furthermore, there is plenty of room to improve our existing methods for reducing traffic accidents and fatalities before implementing driverless cars on our roads. We need a greater focus on driver education and traffic enforcement at all levels of government — particularly involving motorcyclists and riders of other vehicles where helmets are optional or not required by law.

And while we’re at it let’s prioritize improving road conditions as well! Crumbling bridges and potholes have become synonymous with American infrastructure – it’s embarrassing. I truly believe we should not be distracted from the important task of making our roads safer for all forms of transportation by focusing on this unnecessary technology when there’s so much work left to do!Do we really need driverless cars?

Do we really need driverless cars?

While the idea of a computer driving your car may sound appealing to those who hate sitting in traffic or are tired at the end of a long day, the truth is that even with all of its software updates, your car will never be as safe as you driving it. Even if every vehicle on the road were driverless, accidents would still happen. Computers are made by humans, and humans make mistakes. To assume that all human errors can be removed from computers is not realistic. Instead of looking to technology to fix our problems, let’s look at ways we can improve what we already have: our roads and our drivers.

Combating distracted driving with technology isn’t the answer; teaching drivers how to use the roads more safely is the better path forward.

What would be required to make driverless cars safe?

In order to make driverless cars safe, I believe there’s still a lot of work that needs to be completed.

For example, more real-world testing is needed to test the car’s ability to handle dangerous situations and with different road types. Additionally, sensors need to be much more accurate in order to detect objects and their distance away from the car (a human can do this by sight alone).

Driverless cars need the ability to detect and react to dangerous situations. They also need the ability to follow traffic laws, predict and react human behavior (and animal behavior), not drive too fast or too slow, not get distracted by technology or other passengers within the vehicle.

Research shows that more traffic fatalities occur in states without helmet laws.

More traffic fatalities occur in states without helmet laws.

In fact, the research shows that more traffic fatalities occur in states without helmet laws than in states with them. According to a study published by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, although Nebraska has no helmet law while Illinois does, Illinois has a lower traffic fatality rate. This may be because head injuries are the leading cause of death and disability in traffic accidents. In fact, helmets have been shown to reduce the risk of head injury by 85 percent and brain injury by 88 percent. Also, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, motorcycle fatalities are 35 times more frequent than car crash fatalities per mile traveled.

Should driverless cars be programmed to save the most lives?

Driverless cars are starting to come into play here in Canada, and as a philosophy of ethics, utilitarianism is the obvious choice.

Utilitarianism means that everything should be done for the greatest good for the greatest number of people. In this case, it would probably mean sick children would be saved from being run over by driverless cars by those who could not help because they are contorted in pain on their deathbeds. But what about all those other drivers? How do we decide who gets priority and who does not?

That’s exactly where things get more difficult. There’s a philosophical question called the trolley problem: Driverless cars with no steering wheel or brakes are programmed to kill certain individuals (e.g., pedestrians), but can be programmed to turn back before they hit them. The original version of this problem was set up when a runaway train was heading toward five people tied up on the tracks, one of whom was pregnant. Of course, if you were in charge (you’re reading this blog right now and are in charge!), which life should you save? Should you turn around before it’s too late? Or should you keep driving—even though doing so will end one person’s life immediately—in hopes that it will result in saving another? To be honest, I’m still thinking about it…

Who would be liable in an accident involving a driverless car?

Let’s say a car driving down the road automatically slammed on the brakes, causing you to rear end it. If you had been driving, the collision would be your fault and the insurance company wouldn’t have to pay for repairs or medical bills. But who is legally responsible here? Is it you, since your car crashed into another vehicle? Is it the driver of the car in front of you, even though their car didn’t actually cause any harm?

What if that driver was asleep at the wheel and had no idea what just happened? The same question arises in accidents involving self-driving cars. Who is at fault when an autonomous vehicle gets into an accident?

In theory, this should be simple: The company that programmed or manufactured these vehicles would be responsible if they don’t work properly and cause injuries or damage. However, there’s more than one problem with this scenario:

It isn’t always clear whether a manufacturer or programmer was at fault for something going wrong with a self-driving vehicle;

Car manufacturers don’t want to take responsibility for accidents caused by their autonomous technology;

There may not be enough evidence for victims to prove that someone else caused their injuries.

we should have safer roads before creating new technology.

There are over 32,000 traffic fatalities in the U.S. every year. We want to do better than that, and we can. There is already a lot of documented research that shows that more traffic fatalities occur in states without helmet laws than those with them. That’s because helmets are proven to save lives in motorcycle accidents, and they don’t interfere with safe driving habits — they only make those habits safer.

Furthermore, there is plenty of room to improve our existing methods for reducing traffic accidents and fatalities before implementing driverless cars on our roads. We need a greater focus on driver education and traffic enforcement at all levels of government — particularly involving motorcyclists and riders of other vehicles where helmets are optional or not required by law.

And while we’re at it let’s prioritize improving road conditions as well! Crumbling bridges and potholes have become synonymous with American infrastructure – it’s embarrassing. I truly believe we should not be distracted from the important task of making our roads safer for all forms of transportation by focusing on this unnecessary technology when there’s so much work left to do!