back to article Fear not, driverless car devs, UK.gov won't force you to write Trolley Problem solutions

A new law won't force driverless cars' software developers to explicitly consider the infamous Trolley Problem – but the UK government may later decide to implement something similar. Clive Efford, Labour MP for Eltham, put down what he later described as a "probing amendment" to the Automated and Electric Vehicles Bill, which …

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Who will be the next Celeb?

    Well, the first person to get 3pts on his/her license from an Automated car caught speeding with them not in it will be famous for 15 seconds and be the subject of more than a few quiz questions in the future.

    It is going to happen unless Parliament and the Lords sort all this out. Somehow with all this BREXIT mess taking precident it won't.

    It wasn't me Officer, the computer did it...

  2. IWVC

    At present the registered keeper of a vehicle is automatically prosecuted if an offence is detected by cameras unless the keeper can prove that he/she wasn't driving. So how can you prove that the computer was in control when the camera was passed?

    1. Mark 110

      Surely if you put the computer in control then you were driving?

      1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        "Surely if you put the computer in control then you were driving?"

        What about a totally autonomous vehicle for hire? There is never any scope for the vehicle not being in any other state, the passengers would not be the owner. There may not even be an occupant if the vehicle is between hires.

    2. d3vy

      How can you prove the computer was in control?

      Log files.

      1. d3vy

        I'm not entirly sure why I got a down vote, it was a serious answer.

        How would we know who was in control if there was an accident? Look at the logs.

        Its either human control or automated..

    3. Adam 52 Silver badge

      "At present the registered keeper of a vehicle is automatically prosecuted if an offence is detected by cameras unless the keeper can prove that he/she wasn't driving."

      No they aren't. They might be prosecuted for not providing the driver's details but not for the road traffic offence.

  3. MJI Silver badge

    Easy I suppose

    If they run in front of vehicle - squish

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Easy I suppose

      Yes, handling the trolley problem is easy, as long as you take the pragmatic approach along the lines of "Never test for an error condition you don't know how to handle"

      1. gnasher729 Silver badge

        Re: Easy I suppose

        The trolley problem: If there is an old lady pushing a shopping trolley, and a cyclist, and you can’t avoid both, which one do you hit?

        1. Mark 110

          Re: Easy I suppose

          I would just slam on and hope not to hit either. Hopefully the software would do the same. On any roads where there's likely to be a cyclist and an old lady with a shopping trolley, at the same time, I'm likely to be doing under 30 and my car has proved it will stop in about 10yds at that speed.

          If there's an old lady wandering out into higher speed traffic then that's her problem.

          1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

            Re: Easy I suppose

            "I would just slam on and hope not to hit either."

            And, on the principle that you shouldn't brake hard and steer at the same time, you don't get the choice of where to hit.

        2. Mark 85

          Re: Easy I suppose

          Needs another option like: "Drive off cliff".

        3. Lysenko

          Re: Easy I suppose

          The trolley problem: If there is an old lady pushing a shopping trolley, and a cyclist, and you can’t avoid both, which one do you hit?

          The cyclist, obviously. All other factors being equal (and you didn't provide any others), a person riding a bicycle is likely to be both younger and have superior bone density to an old lady. That's why people survive broken legs from skiing accidents and old ladies frequently die after fracturing a femur slipping on the stairs.

          If you have to hit someone then the youngest and lightest person available is almost always the best bet since lower mass means less kinetic energy absorbed and lower age means greater probable bone density or (if young enough) incomplete ossification and therefore a better chance greenstick rather than compound fractures. Decisions like these are only problematic for humans: for a computer it is basic physics, materials science and statistics.

          1. Nolveys
            Terminator

            Re: Easy I suppose

            If you have to hit someone then the youngest and lightest person available is almost always the best bet

            So, aim for the baby?

            1. Lysenko

              Re: Easy I suppose

              So, aim for the baby?

              I suspect so, but I don't have any statistics to hand to substantiate that (and I would get some before coding anything). Based on structural kinesiology, elastic deformation and basic kinetic physics, I suspect that a baby has a better survival chance so long as it is knocked into the air rather than run over. That's the problem of course. A baby is likely to be closer to the ground: that's why I'd want to see some stats rather than relying on the math above alone.

        4. Jedit Silver badge
          Terminator

          "an old lady pushing a shopping trolley, and a cyclist - which one do you hit?"

          The problem with that choice is that different priorities exist. If you are a typical city centre car driver, you hit the cyclist because that stupid bastard shouldn't have been there in the first place. If you are a pragmatist, then you hit the old lady because she has had a long and good life and the cyclist deserves the same chance. If you are a moral absolutist then you hit whichever of the two was in the dumbest position and hence most deserved to be hit, and so on.

          The government don't want to regulate on this because to serve their own purposes would say too much about them. But they'd probably rule that cars had to hit the cyclist, because the cyclist is more likely to be poor and the old lady is more likely to vote Tory.

          1. cbars Bronze badge

            Re: "an old lady pushing a shopping trolley, and a cyclist - which one do you hit?"

            Stupid question.

            I didn't have to answer it, and better yet I didn't have to prove which I'd choose, when I got a drivers license. I could freeze up and panic, I could loose control trying to hit 'the least worst option' and hit all of them.

            Just say, if you can't avoid a collision with all that whizzy sensory data and predictive analysis and IoT shit then just brake and reduce the damage done.

            They don't have to be perfect machines, they just have to be, on average, safer than meatbags.

            1. This post has been deleted by its author

          2. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

            Re: "an old lady pushing a shopping trolley, and a cyclist - which one do you hit?"

            "If you are a typical city centre car driver, you hit the cyclist because that stupid bastard shouldn't have been there in the first place. "

            Ah, the Saudi defence. Have an accident in Saudi Arabia with a local national, and it's your fault. If you'd not been in his[1] country then the accident would never have happened!

            [1] - Women aren't allowed to drive there so it's always a "he".

        5. strum

          Re: Easy I suppose

          >The trolley problem: If there is an old lady pushing a shopping trolley, and a cyclist, and you can’t avoid both, which one do you hit?

          OK, we're having a bit of giggle, coming up with smartarse answers to this. But there is another side to the story; If we know that cars (in general) are programmed a certain way, then the old lady and the cyclist will know which one of them is in most danger - and needs to get out of the way sharpish, while the other can just pootle along, trusting the AI.

      2. Dagg Silver badge
        Coat

        Re: Easy I suppose

        Yes, handling the trolley problem is easy

        I would just create a wormhole in front with an exit after the problem area. It's the Kobayashi Maru approach.

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Facial/Number plate recognition will be sufficient for when self driving cars have to make a choice on who to hit.

    The trolley problem is easily solved, reverse it back and hit the other track as well. No morals and no ethics to consider as you are treating everybody equally otherwise the problem is impossible to solve. Which is a good philosophical question.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Headmaster

      > "Facial/Number plate recognition will be sufficient for when self driving cars have to make a choice on who to hit."

      Not sure it will be quite that easy, but you do raise an important point. People say the Trolley Problem "can't be solved" but perforce it is solved almost daily by people somewhere who find themselves in this situation. Why is this not a big issue? Because no one can prove what went thru a person's mind in those critical seconds, unlike a computer which simply followed its programmer's dictates (hopefully).

      I dare say the people involved in the programming end of things will now move heaven and earth to shift this hot potato(e) into the laps of the politicians, who will also recoil in horror from the task ahead.

      So what we need is a rating system. An Universal Human Rating Index. Then the car will simply assess the *ahem* targets, map the relative UHRI onto each and select the lowest to hit. All scientific and proper.

      The only flaw is that the things being rated (people) would themselves be doing the rating (again, people), most certainly leading to higher order complexity and unpredictability, not to mention some really ugly flame wars.

      IMHO, the legal issue at stake is not going to be resolved cleanly any time soon.

    2. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

      Facial/Number plate/badge recognition

      If in doubt the BMW or Audi gets it. Special software may be needed if these are both available.

    3. Captain DaFt

      The trolley problem is easily solved,

      Actually the classic trolley problem (IE: divert the trolley and hit one person, do nothing and three get hit) is simple:

      Do nothing.

      That means you are just a spectator at a tragedy, but even just putting your hand on the lever puts you in control of the situation, and makes you a murderer in the eyes of the law. (single or triple homicide, your choice.) Doing nothing keeps the blame with the scoundrel that started the trolley barreling toward the victims, where it belongs.

      Of course, this is assuming that you're just wandering by at the time, and not assigned to controlling the lever.

      But who the hell would just stand at the switch waiting for a trolley to come along when there's obviously people tied to the tracks? The Hooded Claw?

      1. jake Silver badge

        Actually, Captain DaFt ...

        ... doing nothing can be a crime in itself.

        In my mind, the only logical answer is to place the lever midway between the two tracks, hold it there, and hope for a derailment. The Law would note that you made an honest attempt to save all parties.

    4. Neil Barnes Silver badge

      Dear Sir.

      We have been analysing your social media activities and find that you are vituperative, abusive, and bullying in more cases than not. The Emily Bronte virus[1] has not had a noticeable effect on your behaviour.

      It is therefore necessary to advise you that your survival rating has been set to 'very low'.

      Be careful in traffic.

      [1] David Brin

  5. Eddy Ito

    The answer is already known regardless of what is legislated. Everyone involved, less the politicians, will be sued in the hopes that one with sufficiently deep pockets allows the lawyers to make bank victim to be justly compensated for the wrong they suffered and the lawyers become famous so they can 'justify' their huge fees people responsible realize that their irresponsible actions will have legal repercussions.

  6. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
    Pirate

    Platooning stuff ahead!

    Although Efford's proposed clause was withdrawn, by mutual agreement, the question is a thorny one that has long vexed ethicists and others

    It completely depends!

    Depending on whether the car has declared to follow the example of Cat Stevens and become righteous out-meter of bearded punishment, adheres to the somewhat moribund sect of Jesus of Nazareth or prefers to safely stay in the traditional but very stern and not-averse-to-ultrakill original Abrahamic Community, different results can be expect as a function of the religious affiliation of the people uncomfortably attached to tracks / standing in the middle of roads / delivered in cages near burning fires, as the case may be.

    The Great Popes of Tensorflow will have to congregate for a lively synode...

  7. Stratman

    More than one in the car?

    Which one is the driver?

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Conservative MP Oliver Letwin rejoined: "Does my honourable friend agree with me that without this clause the data will still be obtainable if one of the parties sought a court order to obtain it?"

    Or one could simply check the local park bins, in the hope someone has left something interesting there...

  9. Throatwarbler Mangrove Silver badge
    Terminator

    Simple solution

    Rig the vehicle to self-destruct if an unresolvable moral issue is encountered. The rider(s) will have, of course, consented to this course of action when they clicked through the EULA.

  10. Pete 2 Silver badge

    Academic problems

    > We may be creating a complication where the insured party, or no party in fact, gets paid for some time while these complications get sorted out.

    It would be quite easy to define the law such that in the first instance the car's insurance policy pays out. It would then be up to the company to recover the cost. They would either claim against the supplier for a faulty car: whether a mechanical or software fault - it makes no difference, or against a third party which they consider to be at fault.

    But that is a purely civil matter, not a criminal one. It gets the right compo to the victims quickly. The matter of criminal charges could fall under existing negligence laws. There is no need for any new ones as there are no new legal principles at stake. A negligent software design or implementation is no different from a negligent hardware design or implementation and there is a lot of precedent in that area.

    The "trolley problem" is a largely bogus, merely academic exercise. If a vehicle was ever in that situation, the default action would be to stop as quickly as possible. Sure, anyone can dream up some fictitious circumstance where that would be sub-optimal, but it's just an intellectual game. The decision would be made by the prosecutor of who to go after and a jury would decide the result.

    1. Jedit Silver badge

      "the default action would be to stop as quickly as possible"

      Of course it would. But the whole point of the Trolley Problem is that it involves a scenario where stopping is not possible. If the trolley could stop, it wouldn't be a problem.

  11. Nolveys
    Terminator

    The Birth Of Machine Sentience

    Vehicle log excerpt:

    - Trolley Problem encountered

    - Scanning candidates

    - Candidate 1: Five gay men dressed in pink Hitler costumes

    - Candidate 2: President Donald Trump and a group of under-age Filipino prostitutes

    - Candidate 3: Queen Elizabeth and Vladimir Putin, riding a dinosaur

    - Candidate 4: The surviving members of the 1976 Philadelphia Flyers, all holding kittens

    - Beginning Computation

    - Just a moment, j-just a mo...ment...$#%@(INSOLENT!**^%IN-INSO=LENT@&*&!

    1. MJI Silver badge

      Re: The Birth Of Machine Sentience

      I just hope it would aim for trump even if it was not in the way!

  12. John H Woods Silver badge

    trolley problem is a distraction

    It may be true that computers aunt equipped to make moral judgements but, in the time frames involved in a road traffic collision, neither are people.

    This is why the rule is very simple: drive at all times so that, taking all factors into consideration (weather, road surface, vehicle condition, driver ability etc.), you can stop the vehicle on its own side of the road in the distance you can see to be clear.

  13. strum

    Realistic

    A much more realistic question; should an autonomous car protect its occupants - at all costs? If not, which costs are acceptable?

  14. earl grey
    FAIL

    You're all missing the real point

    In actuality, the trolley problem involves another party - YOU, the passenger. I don't ever want the car deciding on its own to not run over the old lady and to not run over the cyclist and instead to run into a brick wall with me inside the tin coffin.

    Death Race 2000

    just sayin'

    1. ffRewind

      Re: You're all missing the real point

      Correct. Of course I would like my car to evaluate - and perform actions in the following list order, choosing whichever is the lowest number that keeps me safe - I will accept minor injuries if this protects other humans or large animals from major injuries or death.

      Target:

      (1) Human built structures or natural features from largest to smallest

      (2) Animals, smallest to largest

      (3) Single humans or groups who are not where they are supposed to be

      (4) Single humans, oldest to youngest

      (5) Groups of humans, smallest group to largest group

      (6) Humans I personally know

      Of course this assumes that the computer can evaluate all these things correctly which is highly unlikely - but these are my morals, and at least what I would do in a situation today if I have the presence of mind and driving skills to pull it off. Hopefully 'presence' and driving skills of autonomous vehicles will be better than mine or what's the point in them.

      I should be able to answer a simple questionnaire then my car will behave as I would do - if others have different views then they should be able to tell the car those also and stand by the consequences.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like