Kids With Wheels: Should the Unlicensed Be Allowed To 'Drive' Autonomous Cars? 437
Hallie Siegel (2973169) writes "From the Open Roboethics Research Initiative: Earlier this month, when we asked people about your general thoughts on autonomous cars, we found that one of the main advantages of autonomous cars is that those who are not licensed to drive will be able to get to places more conveniently. Some results from our reader poll: About half of the participants (52%) said that children under the legal driving age should not be able to ride driverless cars, 38% of the participants believe that children should be able to ride driverless cars alone and the other 10% also think that children should be able to drive autonomous cars with proven technology and specific training."
Robotic chauffeur (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:no (Score:5, Interesting)
In my city (Vancouver), trains are basically run automomously under normal circumstances unless there's an interruption, in which case staff at HQ. could manually take control of the vehicles. This is at least somewhat over simplified, as they run on almost entirely isolated railways without much risk of outside risk factors, but a highly advanced car with little more than a GPS (with auto-nav) / stop peddle and an on-star-like communications terminal for emergency stop responses and rescue situations could eventually become a valid and functional road driving system for cities. Even a 'manually driven' option for truly rural areas not covered by the grid could be an option that 'turns off' when entering managed city roads.
I don't see why we couldn't 'have faith' in central city command and control centers which are paid for by road taxpayers to help manage and mitigate risk to public safety. Do you think the added taxes in supporting this would be more or less than the amount lost to accidents/life lost/insurance of a non-managed roadway?
Oh, well, nice dream but I don't see it happening any time soon. Here's hoping I happens before die and..fdsfzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Re:Why can't passengers fly the plane? (Score:4, Interesting)
Do we have passenger jets that the pilots cannot override the autopilot?
I mean that is the real comparison here. If anyone can override the automated systems, then that person or some person needs to be qualified and present during the operation.
Before we go completely autonomous with cars, it should be safe to have autonomous lawnmowers. If the thought of a machine with spinning blades roaming around by itself doesn't sit well, cars without the ability to override yhe autopilot shouldn't either.
Re:no (Score:5, Interesting)
Catch with that. Taxi drivers are largely kid proof and computers are not. Much like elevators, those devices that interact within public space are very difficult to make child proof. Even something a simply as a swing is rather difficult to make child proof and something that needs to be used with adult supervision. Let alone the most obvious danger hacking of the service to facilitate remote control abduction of children. Children require adult supervision, that is their nature, they are learning to be human beings and will make many mistakes. Adult supervision reduces the number of mistakes children will make and the greater the risk the greater the need for adult supervision. Simple hack of an automated car and yet very disruptive especially in rush hour, would be for the child to instruct the vehicle to drive round and round, a roundabout actively denying other vehicles access, yet completely legal.