The Real Moral Dilemma of Self-Driving Cars

Comments • 6 566

  • MyChico333
    MyChico333 Year ago +9408

    People don't care about being safe, people care about feeling safe.
    Humans are morons by nature

    • Meade77
      Meade77 11 days ago

      Congratulations! You're a moron.

    • Autistic Aniki
      Autistic Aniki 17 days ago

      Good to know Veritaserum is anti-human.

    • Moon Wolf
      Moon Wolf Month ago +1

      So we're orcs don't care about stuff just killing and deaths

    • David Hill
      David Hill Month ago

      I ride motorcycles , yes fear of getting hurt sure makes you pay attention to what you are doing , my skills are the only thing stopping me from getting hurt .

    • nimrod films
      nimrod films Month ago


  • Sander Vercammen
    Sander Vercammen 3 hours ago

    What a surprise, a self driving BMW even double parks.

  • DoomRater
    DoomRater 2 days ago

    When personal transportation offers all the same advantages of mass transit... but just transporting me... won't self driving vehicles just make mass transit even less attractive? Cities still won't want to subsidize the costs of riding their systems and replacing a bus driver with an AI offers zero advantages to the bus rider. But an AI on my personal car? Now I don't even get driving fatigue while I arrive at my destination in a fifth of the time and I get all the other benefits of driving.

  • challengerbrant
    challengerbrant 2 days ago

    I drive because it is fun and enjoyable. I will not hand over the wheel to a computer.

  • Ashley ASHLEYM
    Ashley ASHLEYM 6 days ago

    I can hardly trust another human driving, there's no way I'm trusting a computer they mess up too much and I domt go in elevators because they mess up a little too often for my liking.

  • Ñemazo
    Ñemazo 11 days ago

    You want to save lives at the expense of taking responsibility from people?
    You are going against evolution.
    You'll end up with a world full of idiots.
    That's immoral.

  • Jonas Gundlach
    Jonas Gundlach 12 days ago

    you are so smart its not normal. everything you do inspires me

  • Jason Yergler
    Jason Yergler 15 days ago

    So, how much did BMW pay you for this? You do realize that not being open and clear about their sponsorship damages your credibility, don't you? It makes me wonder about all your other videos. Were they sponsored, were you letting biases, whether personal or financial influence your point of view?

  • robbie96267
    robbie96267 18 days ago

    Do you think a Personal Rapid Transit system would be more energy and cost-efficient? And would self-driving cars still be more popular with them as an option?

  • dan f
    dan f 18 days ago

    but how will they perform in 4 feet of snow, blizzards, deep mud, middle of nowhere unmarked roads, on frozen lakes, or in places where maybe you want to slow down and enjoy some scenery?

  • null
    null 21 day ago

    Humans are smart enough to create intelligence beings, but foolish enough to fear them.

  • Todd Lerfondler
    Todd Lerfondler 24 days ago

    thats easy, just create a self sacrificial system that ensures the driver, passengers and people around your vehicle stay safe

  • nina koko
    nina koko 26 days ago

    But ppl can figure out how to hack it. It would be easier to kidnap ppl or even kill them!

  • Marcus_Mravik
    Marcus_Mravik 26 days ago

    I like the idea of cars that aid the driver (aka they'll correct the car or make adjustments). I don't want a car that completely takes the control away until I want it completely back. I want a car that gives complete control until it sees a problem imminent, then controls the car completely until the problem has passed.

  • Peppe Ddu
    Peppe Ddu 28 days ago

    There is no moral dilemma if it's a human choice.
    The driver should make those decision ahead of time, by setting up the right parameters in the self driving vehicle BEFORE the very first time he/she starts driving.
    - In an accident, should the car self crash in order to avoid injuring other people?
    - In an accident, should the car avoid hitting a bike or another vehicle first?
    - On a potential collision with an animal should the car try to save the animal or the passengers?
    etc etc.

  • manguirish sakhalkar
    manguirish sakhalkar 28 days ago

    its an bmw

  • Bevin Allison
    Bevin Allison Month ago

    I prefer the feeling of driving the car to the extent that my fav ones are still stick shifts. As a teen it was this huge right of passage. If given a choice I'd never take or drive in a non human controlled car. As for airplanes being auto flown, they still have trained pilots that can take over at anytime. However saying all that, I can see a market for auto cars for times when ppl cannot get from a to b due to handicap or age, but that's about it.

  • Negasuki
    Negasuki Month ago

    If software created by a company crashes a car I purchase, why would I actually choose take responsibility for that possibility?

  • Helium Valentine
    Helium Valentine Month ago

    Definitely swerve into the suv over the motorcycle. Very likely the svu will survive. It’s 100% the motorcyclist will die.
    It’s more of a dilemma for a big car vs a smaller car such as an SUV and a sedan.
    And the option not mentioned, to not swerve at all . . . .

  • Wesley P
    Wesley P Month ago

    if all these people are dying on the highways the maybe we should be looking at the highways. people may not like it but maybe traffic should be slowed to a max speed of 35MPH in all zones everywhere. this includes highways. just because you can go faster doesnt mean you should. next laws should be passed to make sure cars cannot exceed 50MPH even if you tried to make them do so. 3rd more laws should be pass stating that anyone driving over 50 should be charged with some form of wreckless endangerment and have their drivers license suspended for at least 1 year, if caught driving without one your car should be impounded indefinitely. all these measures would reduce deaths by a massive amount. sure it would take longer to get places but when the cost of getting there faster is peoples lives its not worth it.
    even driveless cars will sometimes break down. what happens when a circuit controlling the computer in a driverless car fries suddenly while its driving? what if its going 65MPH on a highway? do you still crash at 65mph? will you live? see the same question applies there too. 35MPH has a greater survival rate then 65. 65-70 is basically always death where as 35 normally results in severe, but treatable injuries.

  • thestreetlawyer1
    thestreetlawyer1 Month ago

    Only morons drive while using their phone. Your piloting a 4000 lb missile, act like it.

  • GazzilAussie
    GazzilAussie Month ago

    Autonomous cars are the future, people need to get over it... Think about the fact that cars can talk to each other, so in a crash situation, almost all cars can avoid, this is a lot faster then humans that don't know where the other cars are going to go e.t.c

  • Donnie Watson
    Donnie Watson Month ago

    The missing part of this discussion is the fact that any tech in automobiles ends up having greater bugs than anticipated by the engineers, when first introduced on mass.
    I worked on automobiles for 26 years, having only changed careers in the past 2 years. I've seen many safety devices have to run the gauntlet of bugs to manage to outlive the lawsuits created by defective designs.
    All of this is to say, such tech will be excellent until it breaks. The question is, "Will this tech survive long enough to have a level of reliability greater than it's potential liability?"

  • PS2Damon
    PS2Damon Month ago

    just make the driver accountable for any accidents, they still have control of the car when it's needed

  • AlagomSwede
    AlagomSwede Month ago

    I'm looking forward to when driver-less cars are more common for the sake of the people who don't like driving. Personally I think I'll never get one as I'm too much of a petrol-head to give up on driving. This pretty much sums up my view:

  • This Guy
    This Guy Month ago +2

    This is just the tip of the iceberg, what's next? Are machines going to decide what I'm allowed to eat as well? Work for me? Put me in bed? Surf the web for me? I couldn't care less about safety if I'm not allowed to be free anymore. Sense of responsibilities will become thing of the past if we keep heading in this direction.
    Good thing where I am there's winter and shittons of snow and ice. Self-driving cars would be rubbish in such conditions. We're not getting any of these officially implemented here for at least a 100 years. Easy.
    And if we ever do before that, I'm leaving country.

  • Alexander Stollznow
    Alexander Stollznow Month ago +1

    I completely concur with all that is said in this video. Concerns over how a computer might juggle the choices between, as the thinking goes, it will prioritise when endangering 3rd parties, is unrealistic - i dont suppose any algorithm will be based on 'whom should i kill first?'. It also overlooks the fact that such decisions are already being made, by humans.
    My only concern about autonomous cars is that it will lead to me being excluded from having a right to drive at all, on the basis that you cant trust humans.

    • Alexander Stollznow
      Alexander Stollznow Month ago

      two answers to that:
      a/ because humans need to be able to enjoy their lives, and driving cars is something enjoyed by many.
      b/ by saying "risk so many lives" you are grossly overstating the risks posed by human drivers, to others.
      When you remove deaths in single car accidents where the driver is also the victim, risk takers on motorbikes, and pedestrian deaths which are COMPLETELY preventable by pedestrians not walking in front of cars, then the % of all road deaths caused by an 'other' driver is quite small. Plus, the risk of being killed in a car accident is tiny in first place.
      so, yes, there is a risk in having humans drive cars, but it is a tiny one compared to a range of life's risks, and is entirely justifiable as a legitimate form of life enjoyment. this really is only an issue of importance for safety nazis who care nothing about the broader benefit to society. if avoiding any risk at any price was really worthwhile, then it would be illegal to go on a frivolous drive on the weekend for sightseeing. and we would have 40km/h speed limits on motorways. instead, the vast majority of people are happy to take some risk, in return for pragmatism and life enjoyment.
      lastly, exactly the same tecnological aids which will make driverless cars less risky, can be operational to some extent when cars are piloted, even further reducing the argument for not allowing people to drive cars.

    • OneFourFive
      OneFourFive Month ago

      So be it, why risk so many lives just because you want turn some steering wheel?

  • Ethan T. White
    Ethan T. White Month ago

    Making autonomous cars will take a happiness that many people feel from a car. Think about it- with self-driving cars, there will no longer be need for any sports cars to enjoy. I think that the solution is in the drivers' test don't allow redoes for a set amount of time and make the whole class harder so only qualified drivers get on the road.

  • Enjgine
    Enjgine Month ago

    BMW testing Teslas standard feature

  • Flo
    Flo Month ago

    Natürlich ist es ein deutsches Auto.

  • [Insert Name]
    [Insert Name] Month ago

    I disagree with the example at 1:35. If the vehicles can communicate with each other (which they probably will), than the car would be able to tell the other vehicles to stop or move out of the way or whatever whereas humans can’t send messages to other humans at high speeds.

  • Daniel Br12
    Daniel Br12 Month ago

    Brasil onlne

  • Sam Dawkins
    Sam Dawkins Month ago

    i dont want to be a slave to a machine. just like a prefer to walk than have people carry me i want to be in we want to lose our freedom?

  • Harpy Productions
    Harpy Productions Month ago +1

    as far as i know most acident can simply by avoided by breaking if you are not speeding over speed limit. so i say. if the car detect that an acident will happen but cant avoid victims, the car should drive itself to make the car driver itself and its passagers be the only victims

  • Ridheesh 47
    Ridheesh 47 Month ago

    I'll be 18 next year, will get my driver's license, my generation will be last which will observe both combustion engines, electric engines, self driving and autonomous driving.

  • Chemist
    Chemist Month ago

    I️ see a few major problems with cars becoming self-driving in the way people are expecting them to.
    What I️ mean by this is, cars shouldn’t become self driving gradually, but all at once. This is easier said than done.
    The problem described in the video, should the car swerve left into an SUV with a family inside or to the right with an elderly man on a motorcycle is a real issue. It wouldn’t be if every car in the situation was self driving. The car behind the semi could talk to the SUV, the SUV could speed up and allow the car to move into the other lane to avoid the collision.
    But making every car on the road self driving all at once would be impossible, for reason one, price, Cars that are self driving are currently 40,000+ USD and some cost more. This puts the affordability at a low. Not everyone could afford a vehicle like that.
    Reason two is stubbornness, people are stubborn in their ways. Many wouldn’t trust the car and would rather drive themselves. This would cause an issue with all the other self driving cars on the road.
    Reason three, when accidents do happen. It doesn’t matter how many times they test and improve the self driving algorithms, there will be errors. No technology is ever completely perfect. There would still be accidents, glitches, miscalculations. Who do we blame for them? The car company? The Owner of the car? The car?!
    These were just a couple of the issues I️ see with self driving cars. Just my opinion though.

  • Danjal Veskandar
    Danjal Veskandar Month ago

    What should the car do when faced with choosing between two bad options? Communicate with the self-driving vehicles to both sides to have them become a variable rather than a static in the equation.

  • Mark Chester
    Mark Chester Month ago

    Or just hear me out guys ,We could pay attention to the road when we're behind the wheel 🤤🤤🤤I know the thought of that is just unthinkable

  • DrewEmc2
    DrewEmc2 Month ago

    Don't buy into this, people and animals getting hit by autonomous cars everyday

    SNORKYMEDIA Month ago

    americans dont worry about shooting each other - why are they worried about this?

  • the Sun
    the Sun Month ago

    I think its more of trust thing than anything else

  • VitaliUS EN
    VitaliUS EN Month ago

    thanks for interesting video

  • trottingwolf
    trottingwolf Month ago

    There is no moral question about what an autonomous car should do in some circumstance. For example the one shown in the clip that questions, "should the car swerve into the motorcycle or SUV." That is not a moral question. If the car is going to get into an accident and there is no place to go that does not cause another accident then the car just drives on into the accident, or bail of hay in this example.
    I have never heard of a situation that really poses a "moral question" because in all the cases I have heard the answer is the car will only avoid the accident it is about to get into if there is a way to avoid it without getting into another accident.
    You might be able to make up some situation where it looks like there is a moral choice, but in the context of a moving car with fractions of a second to make a surprise decision where you knowledge of the situation is not complete, I don't think you can come up with a situation that is not either incredibly rare to the point that's its meaningless in the context of human vs autonomous driving safety, or the answer is that if you are in a situation where you can't get out then you can't get out and there is nothing you or a computer can do about it.

  • friendsofthepenan
    friendsofthepenan Month ago

    I think insurance premiums will usher in the inevitable autonomous vehicle era whatever happens. I don't agree that the moral dilemma questions are a distraction. Accelerating the uptake of self-driving cars does not get around the question of how to program the software to respond in a no win scenario. The decision has to be made ahead of time that is the difficult part.

  • uberteen999
    uberteen999 Month ago

    That would cost a lot of money

  • Gabriel francis
    Gabriel francis Month ago

    1:33 I imagine that scenario would be difficult for a human too

  • Adam J
    Adam J Month ago

    It is not a moral dilemma. It is just an add disguised as knowledge.

  • William Wesemann
    William Wesemann Month ago

    c'mon, what about tesla?!
    I don't like BMW
    sorry BMW fans.

  • DJoseph1974
    DJoseph1974 Month ago

    No more parking tickets, ill just blame my car.

  • Sailor Barsoom
    Sailor Barsoom Month ago

    Thank. You.
    I keep seeing all these videos and reading all the articles (and the comment sections are worse) about swerving into a wall, thus killing the driver, swerving into three pedestrians, or hitting a school bus (or other BS scenarios).
    How many people reading this have a driver's license? Did you take a written test? Did the test ask if you were willing to kill yourself to avoid hitting one pedestrian? Did the test ask if you were willing to kill one pedestrian in order to spare a busload of children? Whether you would choose to hit a doctor or a nun? One child or fifty kittens?! ANSWER ME!!!
    I suspect that your written exam had no such questions.

  • zippy
    zippy 2 months ago +8

    There will not be self driving cars wide spread for 50 years. We just don't have the tech. to do it safely and wont for a long time. Get over it.

    • Jordus Parwiński
      Jordus Parwiński 22 days ago +1

      We DEFINITELY DO HAVE the technology, I recommend you spending taking a look at some films on those channels: , and this film: Your welcome and happy new year btw.

    • Cashy 1
      Cashy 1 Month ago +3

      it wont take 50 years. we have the technology for robots to drive you around safely. Get over it.

    • Phoenix
      Phoenix Month ago +4

      What do you mean we don't have the tech? Some of the largest tech companies in the world have dumped literal billions into building self driving systems, and they're already close. Tesla is getting ready for a completely autonomous test drive from Los Angeles to New York in a few _months._ How can you possibly think it'll take 50 years?

    • Jonathan Gwynne
      Jonathan Gwynne Month ago +8

      Incorrect. The technology for self-driving cars has been around for years. The obstacles to self-driving cars aren't technical but legal.
      The legal issues in the US are nightmarish.
      Look at what happened to Tesla when they allowed people access to self-driving technology but made them promise to use it safely. That guy in Florida put his Tesla in "autopilot" and was reportedly watching a movie on a portable movie player. Despite receiving many warnings from the system that he was not paying proper attention to the road, he refused to heed those warnings. As a direct result of his refusal to heed these warnings, he was killed. The only good news was that nobody else died as a result of this guy's negligence and that his family didn't sue Tesla for millions or force them to deactivate the system entirely.
      However, as a result of this incident, the Tesla system had to be modified to shut off and it actually disables access to the feature if it detects people not keeping their hands on the wheel - which is difficult because the steering wheel was not originally designed to be able to do this.

  • Cozmo CE life
    Cozmo CE life 2 months ago

    One problem... Hackers..... Hackers can hack the cars and cause the cars to crash, so pretty much with these instead of insurance, you need anti viruses

  • Evan Tigchelaar
    Evan Tigchelaar 2 months ago

    In this situation, the car should swerve left. The person(s) in the car have more protection than the person in the motorcycle.

  • that guy
    that guy 2 months ago

    The problem is it can be hacked and crashed on purpose.

  • Akeria Rivers
    Akeria Rivers 2 months ago

    I hate self-Driving cars they can probably have a car crash

  • Jesse "SuperWaffle57"
    Jesse "SuperWaffle57" 2 months ago


  • Mark Schultz
    Mark Schultz 2 months ago

    I think there should be a lane in every highway for self driving cars and I think self driving cars should talk to each other and have a design to stick together and reduce friction

  • joeashbubemma
    joeashbubemma 2 months ago

    It's interesting that libs blame PEOPLE (94% human error) for collisions, yet blame guns for shootings. Instead of banning vehicles, they seek to remove human control. There's some disconnect with logic and reason here. How many deaths are acceptable with autonomous vehicles? When (not if), there's a major malfunction and people die, libs will justify it as part of the growing pains of technology. I don't have a problem with this tech, just apply your liberal logic consistently. All I hear from leftists is utter hypocrisy. It's not "life" they care about, it's total control over society. THIS is why the people need guns.

    • Sailor Barsoom
      Sailor Barsoom Month ago

      When somebody invents a gun that can decide for itself whether or not to shoot somebody, that comparison will make sense. Not until.
      Though now that I think about it, there are guns which will refuse to fire for anybody but the gun's owner. Conservatives are against them.

  • consuetudinary
    consuetudinary 2 months ago

    An exceedingly weak clip: Comparing airplanes with cars? A comparison of incommensurables. There are lots of reviews online showing how these cars are currently failing to even stay in their lane. If you wish to make them available, you should program them so that they can react immediately to numberless complex situations on the highway. Yes, humans make errors, but a sane person will not rely on vehicles built by the same humans who make errors! A long way to go...

  • TheScape55
    TheScape55 2 months ago

    Let people get themselves killed, there's no moral dilemma about the lives being lost every year. People die, it happens, it's going to happen, it will always happen. We've fucked our environment enough and our massive 7.6billion population isn't helping, let's not find ways to increase it. Sure 30,000 sounds like a lot, but it's ultimately negligible; like a star fading away in a sea of stars. There's already more humans alive today than at any other point in history and we're safer than we've ever been and live longer than we ever have. We've already found a million ways to save ourselves from getting wiped out of the gene pool and allowing nature to balance the population, we don't need to keep coming up with new ways to keep us around. Our planet's inhabitants need less of us around, not more.

  • George K.
    George K. 2 months ago

    GOD DAMN IT!! I want to become a car designer and next year i am moving to italy to study industrial design there... if this does happen, although i see a lot of 'errors' in it, it will totally affect my future.

  • Le F
    Le F 2 months ago

    I would say it's taking longer because of the same reason large corporations bought out better improvement devices to their vehicles because they will be losing out on those big fat pay checks. Not to mention far too many people have proven they like to act like a fool behind the wheel of a car. No more street racing, no more burning tires in the neighborhood are you serious?

  • Marshall Curtis
    Marshall Curtis 2 months ago

    The ethical conundrum that we face with autonomous vehicles is this:
    1...When the machine cannot handle the situation, it beeps an alarm and the human takes over. Fine!
    2...And win the human fails to handle the situation (distracted, etc.), then the machine takes over. Fine!
    3...But what happens if both (wo)man AND machine fail at once? Not so fine!

  • Walking Nightmare
    Walking Nightmare 2 months ago +1

    I'm not buying this product or taking part in any self driving car technology I will drive myself.

    • Sailor Barsoom
      Sailor Barsoom Month ago +1

      Walking Nightmare, I hope that you do not turn out to be a Driving Nightmare.

  • Cosmedian Gamer
    Cosmedian Gamer 2 months ago

    Everything is what you think it is

  • PGTMR2
    PGTMR2 2 months ago

    Why is there always somebody working so hard on these "brilliant" ideas, when all they've come up with, in the end, is another scheme to restrict someone else, to infringe on someone else, aaand there's no other way about it, we must take away everyone's ability to drive themselves? Once they've decided, everyone else must go along or they're evil and don't care about others.
    Go back to the drawing board until you've got something that can work with people. Maybe then unleash it on society with the full force of the law behind it? Completely padded cars inside and out would probably also save lives, but we don't do that because, why? Aerodynamics? Vanity? We don't wear HANS collars with helmets either in the name of safety. What gives? We know those things save lives.
    There's money to be made, a lobbyist working on a politician, a politician working on legislation, or just plain handed something made by the company that wants to change the rules and profit. Are there "anti-Skynet," "Robocop directives," standardized and built in yet? OBDIII will try NOT to kill you? Maybe? I think you'll only end up with soft headed brain dead folks that can't take care of one more thing themselves, and we'll all have to rely on less than ideal self driving cars, won't be able to undo it either. Please please please just get a bus pass.

    • PGTMR2
      PGTMR2 2 months ago

      They do have errors and failures. Stephen King's Christine is a very real possibility if the car doesn't realize it has a glitch.

    • PGTMR2
      PGTMR2 2 months ago

      ... be cause there's fewer of them.

    • PGTMR2
      PGTMR2 2 months ago

      Really? There was no one driving that car... no wonder it crashed.

    • PGTMR2
      PGTMR2 2 months ago

      I'm sure the victims whether just a simple collision or with personal injury would like to hear that they're "irrelevant." Thought this was about caring and sharing? Guess it's not after all.

    • PGTMR2
      PGTMR2 2 months ago

      We have accidents from self driving cars

  • - SD2 -
    - SD2 - 2 months ago

    The problem is, just like being on an airplane, it gets boring. When you keep your eyes on the road, time goes faster.

  • sprfitter1
    sprfitter1 2 months ago

    Two things. Would it take over if a driver falls asleep while driving?
    Could the car drive for someone who is disqualified due to medical reasons?

  • GeneralChangOfDanang
    GeneralChangOfDanang 2 months ago

    So while I can tell that the truck's load is starting to come loose 30 seconds earlier, I would have to wait for the computer in the car to see it actually start falling out of the truck?

  • charles gibson
    charles gibson 2 months ago


  • Hablyhablo Habbo gaming

    No trafic police and no driving license required any more and every thing on control

  • eli dennison
    eli dennison 2 months ago

    "A curfew is in effect all cars are shut down until 6am."
    "Unit 61i need this car in front of me disabled on the highway, it's not pulling over for the traffic stop"
    "Let's pull up his driving history, and check his debit/credit transactions to find out his daily routine, and use his GPS on his phone and car to pinpoint his location and set up an ambush."
    "He voted for _____ let's set him on a lower priority in the event of a crash calculation"
    "He is an organ donor, I need his car to malfunction."
    If we give up the control. That means someone gets it.

    • eli dennison
      eli dennison 2 months ago

      Effect to be truly autonomous they cannot be 100% efficient.
      They cannot rely souly on sensors to be 100% efficient. That car also needs to be able to calculate other vehicles on the road, know where the most congestion is by that. And plan the rout accordingly.
      To do that you would need a server farm large enough to run that.
      That server would be such a risk to public safety that it would have to be under the control of the department of transportation.
      You would be loosing so much potential to merely limit the cars to photonic, kenetic, and ultrasonic sensors!
      It would be no more efficient then driver operated cars. SAFER .
      But not more efficient.
      To be more efficient each car needs to be accounted for, at all times.
      That is a lot of power is all I'm saying.
      We need to take a step back and look at this subjectivity before going at it full throttle.

    • eli dennison
      eli dennison 2 months ago

      Effect they did it with business, marriage, and education so I don't see why a box with wheels is any different.

  • Benson Mathew
    Benson Mathew 2 months ago

    Totally agree!

  • William Wolff
    William Wolff 2 months ago

    Sorry (to some of you, maybe) but part of the solution is to get rid of motorcycles. I don't understand why anyone likes to ride a motorcycle. But they are dangerous, not only to the people riding them, but also to people in their vicinity. Cars and trucks should (although obviously not must) be driven differently when in the vicinity of a motorcycle than when not. Although a collision between a car (or truck) and a motorcycle almost certainly will result in more severe injury to the motorcycle riders than the car (or truck) riders, the collision (not always, but often, especially at high speeds, e.g., on highways) does cause a loss of control of the car (or truck) resulting in a secondary collision of the car (or truck) with something (car, truck, wall, etc.) that causes more severe injury to the car (or truck) riders than the initial collision did as well as causing injury to the riders in other vehicles in the vicinity and/or pedestrians if present. Freedom (unrestricted) is an enticing idea. But liberty (restricted by effects on others) demands prudence. And motorcycles are not prudent.

  • jim kuan
    jim kuan 2 months ago

    Self imposed moral dilemma. There is no moral dilemma. It is just human artificially imposed.

  • Some Guy
    Some Guy 2 months ago

    Because once everythu n g we do is conrrolles by the xloud we die

  • Nicholas Scarff
    Nicholas Scarff 2 months ago

    I have a 1959 Jaguar. Am I meant to give up driving it because of autonomous cars? It’s gone 58 years and thousands of miles without killing anyone.

  • ERL
    ERL 2 months ago

    The most pertinent question of all - do self driving cars let you speed? If you turn off the autopilot in order to speed, then bang go the safety benefits of self driving cars. Everyone wants to speed. People aren't giving that up.

  • bob roger
    bob roger 2 months ago

    the moment where self driving cars will be fully integrated, is when artificial intelligence can be programmed in the car because it will think and take better decisions faster than a human.

  • Texarmageddon
    Texarmageddon 3 months ago

    The real dilemma of self driving cars is that they'll never be main stream for OBVIOUS reasons. it'll be delegated to a optional safety system. Financing cars to such extreme degrees have made people ignorant of the cost to maintain cars.
    Just on a very basic foundation...One or two things would need to happen..
    1.) The Govt would have to force the public to buy an Autonomous vehicle. Which then rises the question, what about the low/middle class who can't afford to maintain said vehicle? Will the Govt just say oh well you can't drive your car? Who will enforce that law? They hardly enforce the people driving unsafe cars now so don't expect it to happen in the future. If they do enforce it, how many privacy laws would they have to break just to ensure this?
    2.) The public would have to double down on taxes. Will the public be okay paying a mass amount of money for EVERYONE to be able to drive? Will the public easily give up their privacy rights? What about the market of cars for people who actually like to drive their cars?

    The only thing autonomous vehicles will ever be is a safety feature in the highest trim of a vehicle.

    • Texarmageddon
      Texarmageddon Month ago

      You're comparing a Device that's pretty much essential... vs technology that isn't...
      Get a clue dude.... most of the cars without this tech already are out of reach for the majority of people.. You honestly think manufacturers are going to hand it out for free?

    • Sailor Barsoom
      Sailor Barsoom Month ago

      Ever is a long time. Remember when only millionaires and billionaires could afford cell phones. It wasn't that long ago.

  • JD
    JD 3 months ago

    Because humans are irrational cunts. That's why.

  • August Ryckman
    August Ryckman 3 months ago

    The stupidest idea ever. Some wacked megalomaniac wants more control of yor lyfe.

  • Silver Gold Man
    Silver Gold Man 3 months ago +1

    Fun data/info but NOTHING on this channel will make you smarter, heallthier nor help you make money, don't waste your time, life is short and this is wasting your time/life.

  • Despiser Despised
    Despiser Despised 3 months ago

    Dont worry our Govt will write many many many Laws dictating what the AI can and will do. With Nanzi Piglosi in charge I feel so safe..

  • asssssssssso
    asssssssssso 3 months ago

    Those are not autonomes vehicles they are automatic.

  • Skinnymarks
    Skinnymarks 3 months ago

    Let's worry about ethical programming of a self driving car after we know what kind of accidents self driving cars get into.
    How can we solve a problem we don't even know what it is.
    So let's just get everyone in a self driving car. Ban all human driving on highways and within cities.
    You can still drive on country roads. That's not a problem.

  • Malinda Lin
    Malinda Lin 3 months ago

    I will never drive a driverless car

  • Chandler Short
    Chandler Short 3 months ago

    Just so long as it's as good as an average driver, I'll drive it

  • Brian Grewe
    Brian Grewe 3 months ago

    If you are talking about a purely utilitarian approach, then yes I can see your moral argument. I would appreciate a more nuanced discussion about it though. Like what about the safe drivers who go out of their way to drive defensively, it would not necessarily be moral for them if they were actually increasing their likelihood of an accident by using the virtual driver. Not disagreeing with your point, but it just seems to me that your brush was a bit too broad.

  • Jᴀᴄᴋᴇʀᴄᴏ
    Jᴀᴄᴋᴇʀᴄᴏ 3 months ago

    that dilemma with the car and the motorcycle is stupid and easily solved.

  • C. Curry
    C. Curry 3 months ago

    How does she handle surface streets? (City/small town)

  • Vraetzught
    Vraetzught 3 months ago

    The actual moral question is a bit different.
    Let's say we come to a point where cars are fully autonomous, so the driver can relax and read a book or watch a movie, not paying attention to the road anymore.
    If an accident occurs; who's responsible? The owner of the car or the manufacturer of the car?
    You can imagine if the responsibility were to be put onto the manufacturer, not too many car manufacturers are keen on providing such a car for the masses.

  • ShrektheBee
    ShrektheBee 3 months ago

    There's also the advantage of speed boundless by law and no street signs

  • Ski Fall
    Ski Fall 3 months ago

    automated cars will kill you to save a couple of people walking by's all about numbers

  • skullisnull
    skullisnull 3 months ago

    100% of car accidents would be avoided if the US had decent public transit and we didn't need cars in the first place. Nice ad.

  • Alex Pandian
    Alex Pandian 3 months ago

    When did The Technology become God.

  • M Thomas
    M Thomas 3 months ago

    This only works best if every car on the road is autonomous. However, think about the idea of autonomous driving suddenly having to become regulated and a law that car companies must produce a very specific auto-driving car now, and that all other vehicles are now road illegal. Everyone currently owning a non-autonomous car would be affected. Talk about a substantial environmental impact.

  • Andrewlina Jolie
    Andrewlina Jolie 3 months ago

    With virtually no accidents on the road, what's the point in paying high insurance rates? Perhaps everyone will have a very cheap form of insurance, or a tax, to pay for the few accidents that do happen to others and that have a small chance of happening to you. Since we can't solve 'who dunnit', maybe we should all take responsibility?

  • Toowoomba Linux
    Toowoomba Linux 3 months ago

    I love driving the open roads!....but not on my daily commute or going to the shops. Driverless cars would be a godsend......

  • Reese Hummel
    Reese Hummel 3 months ago

    Typical millennial response to a problem of driver error is to make robots do it for us. Where's the accountability?